HomeMy WebLinkAbout981761.tiff GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
FOR
TWIN MOUNDS WATER TANK FOUNDATION
LITTLE THOMPSON WATER DISTRICT
for
THE ENGINEERING COMPANY
2310 East Prospect Road
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
PROJECT NO. 95-028T
BY
SMITH GEOTECHNICAL
1225 Red Cedar Circle Suite H
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524
w(970)-490-2620
June, 1997
EXHIBIT
! -.-..ice._
981761
(N Smith
Geotechnical
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
June 27, 1997
Mr. Rick Pickard, P.E.
The Engineering Company
2310 East Prospect Road
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
Re: LTWD Twin Mounds Water Tank Foundation
Dear Mr. Pickard:
Smith Geotechnical has conducted a subsurface exploration program for the referenced project. We are
forwarding three copies of our report presenting the results of our exploration and testing, and our
engineering review with design and construction recommendations.
The opinions expressed in this report are based upon our understanding of the proposed project and the
data obtained from our subsurface exploration.
We have enjoyed the opportunity of working with you on this project. Please feel free to contact our office
if you have any questions or require additional information.
Respectfully,
GEOTECHNICAL/Engineering Consultants i3;7 ' t
Duane H. Smith, PE
991761
1225 Red Cedar Circle, Suite H • Fort Collins, CO 80524 • (970) 490-2620 • FAX (970) 490-2851
PERTINENT INFORMATION
ABOUT YOUR
GEOTECIINICAI, INVESTIGATION RET'OR'T
MOST GEOTECIINICAL "FINDINGS"
Many construction problems are caused by site ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES.
subsurface conditions. As troublesome as Site exploration identifies actual subsurface
subsurface problems can be, then frequency and conditions only at those points where samples are
extent may be lessened considerably taken at the time of sampling. Data derived
through sampling and subsequent laboratory
The following suggestions and observations are testing is extrapolated by geotechnical engineers
offered to help you reduce the geotechnical who then render an opinion about overall
related delays. cost overruns and other cosily subsurface conditions. Men likely reaction w
headaches that can occur during a construction proposed construction activity. and appropriate
project. foundation design liven under optimal
circumstances actual conditions may differ from
those inferred to exist, because even the most
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING qualified geotechnical engineer and the most
REPORT IS BASED UPON A UNIQUE SET extensive subsurface exploration program cannot
OF PROJECT SPECIFIC FACTORS. reveal what is hidden by earth and rock. The
A geotechnical engineering report is based on a actual interface between materials may he far
subsurface exploration plan designed to more gradual or abrupt than a report indicates.
incorporate a unique set of project specific Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ
factors. These typically include: (I) the general from predictions. Nothing can be done ro
nature of the structures involved, (2) the prevent the unanticipated, but steps can be taken
structures' size and configuration, (3) the location to help minimize their impact. For this reason.
of the structures on the site and their orientation, most experienced owners retain their
(4) additional entities such as access roads, geotechnical consultants through the construction
parking lots, and underground utilities, (5) and stage, to identify variances, conduct additional
the level of additional risk which the client tests which may be needed, and to recommend
assumed by virtue of limitations imposed upon solutions to problems encountered on site.
the exploratory program. To help avoid costly
problems, consult a qualified geotechnical
engineer to determine how any factors which SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN
change subsequent to the date of the report may CHANGE.
affect its recommendations. Subsurface conditions may be modified by
natural or man made forces. Because a
Unless your consulting geotechnical engineer geotechnical engineering report is based on
indicated otherwise, your geotechnical conditions which existed at the time of the
engineering report should not be used: subsurface exploration, construction decisions
When the nature of the proposed should not be based on a geotechnical
structure is changed; engineering report whose adequacy may hove
▪ when the size or configuration of the been affected by natural or man made forces.
proposed structure is changed
significantly; or
• when the location or orientation of the
proposed structure is modified.
991761
Speak with the geotechnical consultant to learn if review the adequacy of their plans and
additional tests are advisable before construction specifications relative to geotechnical issues.
starts. Construction operations at or adjacent to
the site, and natural events such as floods,
earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations will BORING LOGS SHOULD NOT BE
affect subsurface conditions and thus affect the SEPARATED FROM THE ENGINEERING
adequacy of the geotechnical report. The REPORT.
geotechnical engineer should be consulted on any final boring logs are developed by geotechnical
such events to determine if additional tests are engineers based on their interpretation of their
necessary. field lags and laboratory evaluation of field
samples. Only final boring logs customarily are
included in geotechnical reports. These loes
GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE should not be reproduced for inclusion in
PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES architectural or other drawings because drafters
AND PERSONS. may commit errors or omissions in the transfer
Geotechnical engineers' reports are prepared to process. Although xerox reproduction eliminates
meet the specific needs of specific individual. A this problem, it does nothing to minimize the
report prepared for a consulting civil engineer possibility of contractors misinterpreting the logs
may not be adequate for a construction contractor during bid preparation. When this occurs.
or even some other consulting civil engineer. delays, disputes, and unanticipated costs may
Unless indicated otherwise, this report was result. To minimize the likelihood of boring log
prepared expressly for the client involved and misinterpretation, give contractors ready access
expressly for purposed indicated by the client. to the complete geotechnical engineering report
Use by any other persons'for any purpose, or by prepared for the project. Those who do not
the client for a different purpose, may result in provide such access may proceed under the
problems. No individual other than the client mistaken impression that simply disclaiming
should apply this report for its intended purpose responsibility for the accuracy of subsurface
without first consulting with a qualified information always insulates them from attendant
geotechnical engineer. No person should apply liability. Providing the best available information
this report for any purpose other than that it was to contractors helps to prevent costly construction
initially intended without first conferring with a problems which may occur.
geotechnical engineer.
OTHER STEPS YOU CAN TAKE TO
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REDUCE RISK.
REPORT IS SUBJECT TO Your consulting geotechnical engineer will be
MISINTERPRETATION. pleased to discuss other techniques which can be
Costly problems can occur when other-design employed to minimize any risk. In addition,
professionals develop their plans based on many engineering organizations have developed
misinterpretations of a geotechnical engineering a variety of materials which may be beneficial.
report. To help avoid these problems, a
geotechnical engineer should be retained to work
with other appropriate design professionals to
explain relevant geotechnical findings and to
991.761
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary 1
A. INTRODUCTION 2
A.1 PROJECT INFORMATION 2
A.2 SCOPE OF SERVICE 2
A.3 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 2
A.4 REPORT FORMAT 3
B. EXPLORATION RESULTS 3
B.1 SCOPE OF EXPLORATION 3
B.2 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES 3
B.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4
B.4 GROUNDWATER DATA 4
C. ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS 5
C.1 PROJECT DATA 5
C.2 DISCUSSION 5
C.3 SITE PREPARATION 5
C.4 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 5
C.4.1 FOUNDATION TYPE 5
C.4.2 FROST AND FOUNDATION DEPTH CONSIDERATIONS 5
C.4.3 ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE 6
C.5 FILL REQUIREMENTS 6
C.6 BACKFILL 6
C.7 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS 6
D. OBSERVATION AND TESTING 7
E. STANDARD OF CARE 7
APPENDIX A
Vicinity Map
Boring Location Map
APPENDIX B
Unified Soil Classification System
Description of Terms
Key to Boring Logs
Boring Logs
APPENDIX C
Summary of Laboratory Test Data
Consolidation/Swell Tests
Unconfined Compressive Strength Tests
Falling Head Permeability Tests
x"1761
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This subsurface exploration is for the addition of a new five-million gallon water tank at an existing tank
site owned and operated by the Little Thompson Water District.
The project site is overlain by surface topsoil with native vegetation. A layer of dry, silty clay lies below
the topsoil and extends to depths up to 6-'h feet below the ground surface. Beneath the clay overburden
soil lies weathered shale which becomes more competent with depth. Sandstone bedrock was encountered
in one boring at approximately 30 feet below the surface.
The clay deposit is not suitable for support of the tank foundation due to its swell potential and high
consolidation characteristics. The tank must bear on the underlying shale formation which has good
bearing capacity but does have a moderate to high swell potential.
Some special considerations must be taken if a tank is to be constructed and operated at this site. The
Owner must understand the potential risks and the design must accommodate certain precautions to provide
a successful installation. The site is acceptable for the proposed construction if the recommendations of
this report are followed.
1
Qo17Sl
A. INTRODUCTION
A.1 PROJECT INFORMATION
This report summarizes the subsurface investigations, laboratory testing, conclusions, recommendations,
and foundation design as prepared by SMITH GEOTECHNICAL, for the foundation of a proposed 185-
foot diameter, 25-foot high, 5-million gallon water tank. This investigation is for The Engineering
Company (TEC) and the Little Thompson Water District(LTWD). The site is located approximately four
miles east of the town of Campion in Weld County, Colorado. The site and tank is owned and operated
by LTWD for the purpose of storage and distribution of domestic drinking water.
A.2 SCOPE OF SERVICE
The scope of service for this subsurface exploration was limited to:
1. Advancement of four (4) borings to depths up to 30-feet below the ground surface or 5'
into rock, obtaining soil samples during drilling;
2. Visual classification of soil samples obtained;
3. Laboratory testing of soil samples;
4. Analyze results of soil classifications and laboratory testing to determine foundation related
recommendations, with regard to:
a. general discussion of existing conditions and their impact on the proposed
construction;
b. allowable bearing pressure and recommended footing placement;
c. requirements of fill materials and compaction of fill materials beneath
construction areas;
d. densification of subgrade, if required;
e. frost-related design consideration; and
f. groundwater and surface water considerations.
A.3 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The site is located approximately four miles east of the town of Campion in Weld County, Colorado. The
site location is shown on the site vicinity map included in Appendix A of this report. The site is overlain
with some native forbes and grasses and is surrounded mostly by farmland. An existing I I5-foot diameter
steel tank is located on the north end of the site. The new tank is proposed to be placed directly south of
2
0p1761
the existing tank.
A.4 REPORT FORMAT
The purpose of this report is to present field observations and visual classification of soils, summarize
laboratory results, provide engineering recommendations and foundation design. Provided in Appendix
A to this report is a Site Vicinity Map showing the project site location, a Boring Location Plan showing
boring locations with respect to existing and proposed feature. A set of Boring Logs showing the type and
depth of soil changes and water table location is found in Appendix B.
B. EXPLORATION RESULTS
B.1 SCOPE OF EXPLORATION
The field work conducted on May 14, 1997, consisted of drilling and sampling four(4)borings, numbered
BH-1, BH-2, BH-3 and BH-4, to depths of thirty (30), twenty (20), thirty (30), and twenty (20) feet
respectively below grade for the purpose of gathering area subsurface data.
B.2 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
The borings were advanced with a CME-55 drill rig equipped with a four-inch diameter solid-stem flight
auger. Samples were recovered from the borings for visual classification(ASTM D-2488) in the field and
for future laboratory testing.
Disturbed soil sampling was performed in accordance with ASTM D-1586, Standard Penetration Test
(SPT). Using this procedure, a 2-inch outside diameter split-barrel sampler was driven into the soil by
successive blows of a 140-pound weight falling 30 inches. After an initial set of 6 inches, the number of
blows required to drive the sampler an additional 12 inches was recorded as the "penetration resistance"
or "N value". The N value is an index of the relative density of cohesionless soils and the consistency of
cohesive soils.
A limited number of undisturbed soil samples were recovered by use of three-inch diameter thin walled
Shelby Tubes pushed slowly into the soil.
As the samples were obtained in the field, they were visually classified by an Engineer from SMITH
GEOTECHNICAL. Representative portions of the samples were then returned to the laboratory for further
examination and verification of field classification. Boring logs, indicating the depth and identification of
the various strata, the N value, water level information, and pertinent information regarding the method
of advancing and maintaining the drill holes, are included in Appendix B. Charts illustrating the soil
classification procedure, and descriptive terminology and symbols on the Boring Logs are also included
in Appendix B.
3
SF1761
B.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The subsurface conditions encountered in the borings have been used to infer the
general soil conditions at the site. We assume the soil conditions between borings are
fairly represented by the borings. During construction, if conditions are encountered
other than those described below and as shown on the Borings Logs included in the
appendix to this report, it is important that a geotechnical engineer be informed to
evaluate the exposed conditions with respect to their effect on our recommendations.
The following is a brief review of the various layers of soil encountered. All depths given are relative to
the ground surface at the time of drilling. Please refer to the boring logs for a more complete description
of soil conditions at each boring location.
(1) TOPSOIL : The site is covered with approximately six (6) inches of topsoil with native
grasses and deciduous shrubs growing in areas of the site.
(2) CLAY: A layer of clay, which is derived from the underlying shale, extends to depths of
up to 6'/-feet below the ground surface. This clay material is medium stiff to stiff,
exhibited swell pressures up to 850 pounds per square foot, and is highly compressible
when wetted.
(3) SHALE: The shale layer begins at six(6) inches to 61-feet below the ground surface and
extends to a minimum depth of 30-feet below grade. Near the surface the shale is
extremely weathered. The shale becomes more competent and gains structure with depth.
SPT N-values range from 13 bpf to 100 bpf. This material exhibits high swell potential
with one sample exhibiting a volume change of 2.2% with a swell pressure of
approximately 5,000 pounds per square foot.
(4) SANDSTONE: Sandstone was encountered in BH-1 at a depth of approximately 30 feet
ground surface. This material appears to be dense at indicated by the high blow count for
this sample.
B.4 GROUNDWATER DATA
Groundwater levels should be expected to fluctuate seasonally and yearly from the
groundwater readings noted on the boring logs. The time of year that the borings were
drilled and the history of precipitation prior to drilling should be known when using the
groundwater readings from the boring logs to extrapolate water levels at other points in
time.
No groundwater was encountered at the time of drilling within the boring limits. The boreholes
were left open (not backfilled) so if any groundwater seeps into the borings between the time of
drilling and time of construction, the groundwater level could be observed.
4
?+?1761
C. ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS
C.1 PROJECT DATA
The engineering recommendations made in this report are based on our understanding
of the project as discussed in the following paragraphs. The recommendations are valid
for a specific set of project conditions. If the characteristics of the project should change
from those indicated in this section, it is important that we be informed so that we can
determine whether the new conditions affect our recommendations.
A proposed 185-foot diameter, 25-foot high, 5-million gallon steel water tank will be erected at the
approximate location shown on the boring location plan. The tank is being purchased by LTWD to
upgrade their domestic water supply to the surrounding areas.
C.2 DISCUSSION
The site is generally suitable for support of the new structure if the recommendations of this report are
followed. The final elevation of the foundation bearing level needs to be coordinated with the depth to rock
to ensure differential settlements do not take place by placing the tank partially on overburden clay.
C.3 SITE PREPARATION
The site should be stripped of any topsoil and grasses prior to any work being conducted. The clay soil
overlying the site is very dry, is highly compressible, and swells when saturated. This material should not
be utilized as support for the tank but should be removed. The shale formation on site underlying the clay
has a moderate to high potential for swell if saturated and care must be taken to ensure this layer does not
become saturated. Drains in conjunction with positive slope away from the foundation should be
employed to prevent saturation of the shale. Leaks from the tank must be directed away from the subgrade
to prevent saturation.
C.4 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
C.4.1 Foundation Tvtlg
A ring wall foundation is recommended for this structure bearing on the shale formation or on a
compacted subgrade. The foundation should bear on the shale only if precautions are taken to ensure any
tank or water line leakage can be controlled to direct the water away from the tank without saturation of
the subgrade. This may require under drains for the tank or consideration of sealing the surface under the
tank to prohibit saturation in case of a leak. The water lines into the site must be designed to prevent water
from a leak running to the foundation area and saturating the tank foundation area.
C.4.2 Frost and Foundation Depth Considerations
The tank foundation should be placed at least 36-inches below the final exterior grade to provide proper
protection from frost damage. Due to the variation in grade and depth to rock over the site, the final tank
elevation needs to be set to ensure the foundation does not sit on some overburden clay and some shale.
5
1:!.C. 1.761
C.4.3 Allowable Bearing Pressure
For a ring wall type foundation bearing on the weathered shale, the foundation may be designed for a
maximum bearing pressure of 3,500 pounds per square foot (dead plus live loads). The footing should
be designed by a competent structural engineer and all load conditions taken into account to ensure the ring
stresses and bearing pressures are not exceeded. The total settlement for this loading is not expected to
exceed I-inch beneath the ring wall foundation. Settlements at the center of the tank will depend on the
type of backfill utilized. If a pit run type material is utilized, total settlements less than 1-inch would be
expected at the tank center. Differential settlements should be addressed by the foundation designer for
the different load conditions, especially wind loads, to ensure these are not a problem.
If a clay type material is used for the backfill, consolidation tests would need to be run to determine the
settlement expected.
C.5 FILL REQUIREMENTS
It is recommended that a CDOT class 6 road base or a pit run material with at least 12% fines be used as
fill beneath the ring foundation if required and beneath the steel tank within the ringwall. This fill should
be placed in nearly level lifts, not more than 8-inches loose thickness. Each lift must be compacted to a
minimum of 98% of the maximum thy density as determined by a standard proctor test (ASTM D698), at
±2% of the optimum moisture content. The existing clay may be suitable for fill if removed, moisture
conditioned, and compacted to 98% of ASTM D698. This would require additional testing to determine
if the soil is suitable for fill when compacted.
It is not recommended that any of the existing onsite clay materials be utilized as backfill beneath the
tank foundation or beneath the tank shell unless additional testing is conducted. The clay material may
be utilized as backfill on the tank exterior.
All fills that will support structures or slabs should be tested by a geotechnical engineer to assure
adequate and uniform density is obtained. For no reason shall the new tank foundation rest upon any
fill material which is not designed and tested by a geotechnical engineer.
C.6 BACICFILL
Backfrll around any onsite structures may utilize the existing site materials and should be placed to at least
95% of the maximum dry density determined by a standard proctor test at ±2% of optimum moisture.
Where the backfill will support a structure or concrete slab, we recommend removing the overburden clay
and replacing with non-expansive soil or pit run type fill compacted to at least 98% of the maximum dry
density determined by a standard proctor test (ASTM 11698) at ±2% of optimum moisture.
C.7 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The existing onsite clays have a swell potential of approximately 850 psf in their natural state when
saturated. These soils are relatively dry with natural moisture contents of 10% and saturated moisture
contents of approximately 20%. These soils also exhibit high consolidation characteristics when saturated.
It is not recommended that these soils be used as subgrade support for the tank shell.
6
?'?1761
The shales on site have a high bearing capacity but do have moderate to high swell potential. Some of the
shale samples tested indicated no swelling when wetted, however, one sample tested swelled 2.2% with
a swell pressure of approximately 5,000 psf. The shale is interbedded with sandstone and some of the shale
does not swell due to its cementation and high sand content. There is enough potential however to require
special precautions be taken. These include consideration of an under drain to ensure the subgrade does
not become saturated if the tank leaks, a minimum 2%positive slope away from the tank so water can
not stand around the tank, and consideration to sealing the tank subgrade to minimize any leakage from
saturating the subgrade. Steps should also be taken to ensure water from a pipe leak can not drain into
the foundation area thereby saturating the tank foundation bearing materials.
There is a tank onsite that has been in place for many years that has not experienced problems due to
swelling soils. This indicates that this site can be utilized with some precautions to ensure the subgrade
does not become saturated. The tanks are on top of a hill such that runoff and fluctuations of groundwater
would not be expected to be a problem. The greatest risk is from a tank leak or from a waterline leak.
Both of these leaks can be controlled somewhat with some minor design consideration.
If the considerations and recommendations in this report are followed, we see no reason why a tank should
not be successfully located and operated on this site. There is some risk however, with the swelling soils,
that the Owner must address and accept if a tank is to be located on this site. Leaks need to be detected
quickly and repaired quickly and the Owner must be aware of this.
D. OBSERVATION AND TESTING
Since a project of this nature requires many soil related judgements and decisions, we recommend that an
experienced geotechnical engineer be retained as part of the construction team. We strongly recommend
that all footing trenches be visually inspected by a geotechnical engineer or trained technician prior to
placing concrete. Any unsuitable or wet soil conditions existing at footing level can then be delineated for
removal and replacement. We also recommend that a limited number of compaction test (approximately
one test for every 100 cubic yards of fill placed) be performed to document the degree of compaction
obtained in backfill and structural fill. SMITH GEOTECHNICAL is equipped for, and would be pleased
to provide, the recommended quality assurance testing of concrete and construction fills for the proposed
project.
E. STANDARD OF CARE
The recommendations contained in this report represent our professional opinions. These opinions were
arrived at in accordance with currently accepted engineering procedures at this time and location. Other
than this, no warranty, either expressed or implied, is intended.
-
taamttnre ftl% —
Prepared and sub Vit fi.c49
S1-TIC GEOT 4{ Y/ ing Consultants
(..._______</
•p j¢r
v. k,-
Duane H. Smitli� i .�����N������T�z
oii�m�NAI.P�u�`�
7
9! i 761
APPENDIX A
Vicinity Map
Boring Location Map
$`?1761
N PO
u O .I
1 is t ; i v .xrenKm [ CIASSICAOS sot
el At so;X 'S J�u5111111'J • ,.Y It 5•' 7/ tm ma �� l_ \ V
r 11 C:, t.N� •tVl% R' (�, 1 I�VS n I1 1;E .door
\r ( k•..19L �1 k:.4,V ., gal lak� N)0 •
L 11111111
lu1 It
11
' J IIIIIIIIVI t Ir/@ _� Coal /cr` II
:I I"= / .J-9 ¢lend V '2365 3,..1� ,.
••
` g d .' .m. 1 ii. I. , 1.....m ,K.O -..�— ,
.1'. (g < -.A. . wr. KC;ON V( ,
tae i`::�`il `• st R ViVT lands _J }. � g9csr�l na u.
�ybm i .CJ '!: .1 ''LICLw •-SWA /'e IS!SI l g 1Kfl,c
A 5wn'� { �..-. Simuwn Ponds ' i-� ..b
402 blb..n SWA _
_J. G InxM J ]r 1., fl p.. Cww. i.e.' , QI ..
flY
10
L 0221
g1:Hi6'ICr.� _ M w n w Na-
Tt.9,. •q.WA g xw
RnerOd n b , L. p C�uv+.., O
i • BB ° SITE , m I ,.. so '
tone Tree a-. ••"I. u• c. r..., 25
Reservoir w�` i .. Q M("'"( e
• 287 S 87
21 //11�� Ih&owe• yw —)Rr.a.uoi. - El.rl
aftl' �F,'L' Berthoud t p w' g.K a no Re✓rua MI Iwo, 68
-"7 • Rn.no' S...nvrkNK O _ :U _I Br-rerun. W.��,,y wx4.
_ _ igloo ac I&J. YMO....
Welch Ilo,...W 2
Resew°. I .Al v I M AO
Rcten..r 0 b
nw to AO Ww I G
r. 1 ��bnu.n� fNttn t I Lgaq. _'
OkO 7 ®
_ - �d Berthoud 56
C
,o ?kn.:. y P /N•nxm.p t.41 1
N...-.... (I .1
• F \1 Deck 9..1,4 4� K w ,- f V n b
2l Q.s 0!O V J )w _ _.. .1____.
w'r } __ g nI? 22 ;2
_l ''- K \%1 -._D k< god _ DIAL('1
b V 0J Lake l_•
.3 Rockwell Oa.. '—
I Litt . P $ $ Re, 1 9 Rn�o •
/ II I'e Z to ' c •
Qi)
'Blue M.n . ,g w I 5 . T
RC+<n.o-. c '. Rao
a
_F t: • Rc.rmO'ICo I — / \ O µiyLlnnn v OPS ` •
�/� Iy k,.11—
iRtherow I�,n i .p L.E• 1I ---
I = n2-
lOw4.d1'Co .l.lO�f.O+[ O - M•u'' yN
09., w/ eO 0.rOON v _. �\ I nl.
b y _ —T,
.4OIw . P.,,,..,.
F
t,wn / rl I .-\
LITTLE THOMPSON WATER DISTRICT TWIN MOUNDS TANK C�smltIn
� Cootecnnical
SITE VICINITY MAP ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
49"1 761
EXISTING TANK
60'
L
BH-1 p BH-2
PROPOSED TANK
71 .5°
O BH-3 O BH-4
LITTLE THOMPSON WATER DISTRICT TWIN MOUNDS TANK ISC ces le Ite
Sotechnlcal
BORING LOCATION PLAN ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
St1761
APPENDIX B
Unified Soil Classification System
Description of Terms
Key to Boring Logs
Boring Logs
9'1761
Unified Soil Classification
till s Ideroicai on ProccEuru Group I Information Required for Laboratory ClaaiAcatlos
(Earl wrong peal„clu urger than J in.and barmy fractions or Symbmslt Typical Names
Describing criteria
•
uiJnaled weight') • r
I Wide ranee in gran vibe and mbuanita] Well graded gravels. gravel. Co ••• D1p Orca Le that 4
mounts of au in:ermedirte particle Cay sand :alum. little or no .� `o D1° a
o c i - I lists on, Dive typical name: indicate ap- a 2 Crogo Bolween 1 and J
o a' d ^ Pmaimue percentages of sand c 2 ; C Dt° x D1°
_- Y _ and onset: maximum Hu:
aPlcOOm,naniiy one siren a <of rnas I I Poorly traded erasels, gravel- angulari) surface condition. + —
d _ r nn: LP > 0 Not matins all gradation requirements for Lu'
y re n tan ea ic e sites missing sand n , ores. le or names and hardness of the e se E y ti
-- — - -- grains. lo<ai or geologic iileac name P
• • p' r lee J[n I[, O+ pro- Silty gratis. poorly graa[d and O n<r Berl I due Alive -tali Y Attar Oerg limits below Above 'A' ten
eZ -- eJu.o,<c NI olio» G ! va•a•and , m, tare, nfor mat bra and s>'m Holt in _yy A' Inc or P/ leg w th PI between •
22
- parentheses c -. -X:: than, a and ) as
d E` -••: %auc[nn(for AenuOuupn procedures, GC Claye grate's. poorly graded For undisturbed soils add informs - V.^.yy rr Atlerbelg limit' •bo•c pauifing e of
e, $ eZ IUe . sea Cl,below) ! pro.<han lion on stratification.degree Of `env V�� "A"line.with// requiring use of
d•day miatorea - gross dual symbols •
C2 s' c compactness, cementation, CO <] greater than)
- moisture conditions arid 2 Ot •
Fy 2 ° - wmc rantt m train sites and suesumml Well graded unas. tn+nly drainage characteristics ...
`o V V m Cp Doi? Greater than 6
amounn of all intermediate particle SW
•
C e o : ; - s'ut sands,little or nO Ones Example C.. C C (Dada Between I and 3
o - _ <- Sillyhardnd.gulaclly: about 20: »ss N C_ Otg x Daa') u- t' •< hard,angular gravel particles o C oar.
"o=• St- - � a Picadminan'ir one site or a ante of sus Poorly graded sands. gra•ell5• I•in,maximum size: rounded o �.U+n '
- _ »gym some .nic.mcd um sizes missing SP sands,tu::e or no M<s ] and subanvubr and trains x open Not mating all tradition regultemrnu for SW
coarse todneabout 15',,non. c-
dnp tat c ._, (for pro- Spf Silts sands.pooh) graded sand• P s T fines roll low dry tit c -u? Autsb<ra limits Oelov Above "A" fiat
• «guru.se[ lL um.l , m,rot's •
Strength. II compassed and E t°e u w oS A line or Men INa wills P/ belwae
=2 - � moist in place. alluvial and: wd.Zn 5 4 and )
a L$ 4C
- (She) o Borderline uses
- Sr = n' t P.ae <nn<+(foi sands red d .VO" Attesters I:m,i Wow
.- .urn. .c,.�O Oc<r.w.+ C.aa[0goo t e - "A" lane with PI rquinog use or
c • SC ""3 "1 dust symbols
_—. c gums than]
Dry Soenglni Tougnnen . c
D�acancr t y C 60
tar wnma (comas[ c
troc(,on - Stijl d
n ac [ vvmv) plastic 'a
" sal l C Compuint Will al stied liquid limit
50
s _ Inorganic + t and very M1ne - l f M I I
0 <c m d rock flour. S a or Giro typical name dba<d tea - u
$ < N n< AILy and character of plasticity. a 40,=lautnnw sM do salt'oil kiuuu '
suit, sin» Clayey fine sands ""b 'I'll" a u
cif mourn and maximum sine of =:M"notation plasticity Wu
p t'1' y coarse n,oil colour in rots >. a
Z E__ Inorganic clays or low to condai n,odour it any,local or 'V 30
None Io pledrum CL medium plasocdy. gravelly geologic name,and other pert.-
: _
'- - f • tier. very slo- Tian.handy clan.silly clay,. anaa«lien:ve information, q 20 OH I
Si -- '.i li Urvan e tint and organic vita symbol n pa<nthcsea s tt w
• B.d_ Stitt.; curt tan of o-pt'+ c tr For undisturbed sods add infor. x 10=CI w� tax
it' < notion on structure stratlfca• -1 -t-kt x( WE
Inorganic silts. micaceous or
.a ' Sio» t maven m ' Ain diatomaceous M1ne sans of ;ion emould d in o undisturbed 00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
- medium none
o meamm ICI vlty soils,easuc file Y and remoulded d solo,moisture
L - and drainage conditions
`2' -_ H,gn iO • Inorganic clays of high plan. Liquid limit
nnn none High CH 9
- •cry uClty,fu Clay Examylr.
/t I Medium Io ' None to Slight to Organic<lays of medium to high CloyeY silt, brown: slightly Plasticity chart
y c^ highvery slow medium On tactual. plastic: small tale of -
pfor laboratory classification of fine grained soils
M1ne sand: numerous vertical
Readily 'denoted by colour- odour. Peat and Other highly organic root holes: Arm and dry in
Highly Organic Soils sporV!cut:reel and frequently by Obrous Pe soils place:los: (AFL)
lulus°
From Wagner,195],
• Boundary elasufrdaonx. Soils possessing chan<teristi<r of two groups arc designated by combinations of group symbols. For example ew-CC,well graded travel-and mixture with clay binder.
5 All sieve sixes on'.Six chart are U.S.wnCard.
Field Idrnitfirclion Pras'In ure for Fine Crainrd Soils Or Prarlionl
TTeae proud,rte arc to be performed on the minus,So.40 sieve Sae particles,approximately kit in. For field classldca lion purposes,screening in not intended,simply remove by hand the coarse particles teat interfere with the testa.
Dilnl<nry(Reaction to inning) Dry Steen:in(Crush:ne characteristics): Toughness(Consistency near plastic limit):
Alter removing Panicles server Irian NO. 40 ticie Sire. prepare a pat of Afln re monina particles larger than No.40 sieve siu,mould s pat of soil After removing particles larger than;be No.40 sieve sit,a specimen of
rnoiaI soil with a volume of aboa.t one•naif cubic inch. Add cnou¢n IC the consnleney of putt,adding water if necessary. Allow the par to soil about one.halr inch cube in size,Is moulded to the consistency of
/j0 .ater if neury It'rake the Soil soft Out nol unity dry completely by on,sun or air drying,and then teal Its Strength by putty. If too dry, water most be added and If sticky, the specimen
:.� Pau the w pat the open p of one nand and snake hontoniat,sinking breaking and crumbling between lame the Posers. This strength is a measure should be spread out in a thin layer and allowed to lose moisture
v,vo rousn deans ine :Inc:c. A positive it acnon of lie chancier and goan"Iy of the colloidal fraction contained in the by evaporation. Then the specimen is rolled out by hand 00 a amootb
c s l ppc f - ire pa - n + : . nincreasing plat ctiy surf¢' or between the palms into a .Mad about one-eight Inch to
:tsarina 'a I,: [rev s: loi clays o' n[ CII group A typical diameter The thread is then folded and re.roll°d repeatedly. During
.1/441 1..ttast
po very slight dry strength. Silty fine sands thismman-pulation Inc moisture content is gradually reduced dad the
CI
P- a o a d,:n errs 'rne n but tan sects ngu shed specimen stiffens, finally totes lea plasticity, and crumble, weed we
V• :. g c p e cal win , p n ee n[ dried specimen Fins urea fens gritty
plastic limit Is reached.
v c y '+ a cn as cal t + of n feel or flour. Af e+ rte thread crumbles the pieces should be lumped together and a
ilia . y c v 4 d, c tllht kneading action eomtu recd until the lump crumbles.
a pa.c pant l.. a gyp o r(x. The tougher the thread near the plastic limit and the stiffer the lump when
.'a.:.ino»•a rr.oee aI0U Xi-it. r<aumn it[malty crumbles.the more potent Is the colloidal clay fraction to the
soil. Weakness of the I reread It the plastic limit and quiet Ims of
coherence or the lump below the plastic limit Indicate either moreanld
clay of low plasticity.or materials such as kaolm•type clays and Ortaoic
clays which occur below the Arline.
STIFFNESS/RELATIVE DENSITIES OF SOILS BASED ON SPT N-VALUES
CLAYEY SOILS I ( SANDY SOILS
�LATIVE 1
I UNCONFINED
N LCONSISTENCY COMPRESSIVE N DESCRIPTION DENSISTY
STRENGTH(psO
2 Very Soft 500 <4 Very Loose <0.2
2-4 Soft 500-1000 4-10 Loose 0.2 -0.4
4-8 Medium Soft 1000-2000 10-30 Medium Dense 0.4 -0.6
8-15 Stiff 2000-4000 30-50 Dense 0.6-0.8
15-30 Very Stiff 4000-8000 > 50 Very Dense 0.8 - 1.0
> 30 Hard 8000-16000
DESCRIPTION OF ROCK HARDNESS
Very Hard- Cannot be scratched with knife or sharp pick. Breaking of hand specimens requires several hard blows of
geologists pick.
Hard- Can be scratched with knife or pick only with difficulty. Hard blow of hammer required to detach hand
specimen.
Moderately Hard- Can be scratched with knife or pick. Gouges or grooves to 1/2 inch deep can be excavated by hard
blow of point of geologists pick. Hand specimens can be detached by a moderate blow.
Medium- Can be grooved or gouged 1/16 inch deep by firm pressure on knife or pick point. Can be excavated in small
chips to pieces about one inch maximum size by hard blows of the point of a geologist's pick.
Soft- Can be gouged or grooved readily with knife or pick point. Can be excavated in chips to pieces several inches
in size by moderate blows of a pick point. Small thin pieces can be broken by finger pressure.
Very soft- Can be carved with a knife. Can be excavated readily with point of pick. Pieces an inch or more in
thickness can be broken by finger pressure. Can be scratched readily by fingernail.
DESCRIPTION OF ROCK WEATHERING
Fresh- Rock fresh, crystals bright, a few joints may show slight staining.
Very slight- Rock generally fresh, joints stained, some joints may show clay if open, crystals in broken face show
bright.
Slight- Rock generally fresh- joints stained and discoloration extends into rock up to one inch. Open joints
contain clay.
Moderate- Significant portions of rock show discoloration and weathering effects, shows significant loss of strength
as compared with fresh rock.
Moderately severe- All rock except quartz discolored or stained. Rock shows severe loss of strength and can be
excavated with a geologists pick.
Severe- All rock except quartz discolored or stained. Rock "fabric' clear and evident but reduced in strength to
strong soil. Some fragments of strong rock usually left.
Very severe- All rock except quartz discolored or stained. Rock fabric discernible but mass effectively reduced to
soil with only fragments of strong rock remaining.
Complete- Rock reduced to 'soil'. Rock 'fabric' not discernible or discernible only in small scattered locations.
Quartz may be present as dikes or stringers.
99.1761
KEY TO BORING LOGS
soil and Rock Samplers
Iilr—III- ® California
II—dII—_i TOPSOIL
III III
Split Barrel
J , f . FILL
— rr .r r . , Shelby Tube
' " SILT 0 Bag/Auger Cuttings
a
CLAY 0
SAND
Symbols
LWIDP=: = '"� GRAVEL
V
,n....•. . Water Table
------ SHALE & CLAYSTONE Definite boundary
-- -- — _ _ _ Indefinite boundary
SANDSTONE
•... . ...
►........4
►���������4 BEDROCK
rn Smith
Gootochnlcal
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
9"1761
BORING LOG
SMITH GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS BORING NO. 8H-1
PROJECT JOB NO. SHEET OF
TWIN MOUNDS TANK (Little Thompson) 97.028T 1 1
CLIENT FIELD ENGINEER
THE ENGINEERING COMPANY 11
DRILLING COMPANY DRILL RIG
DRILLING ENGINEERS CME 55 w/4"0 OD FLIGHT AUGER
LOCATION ELEVATION DATE
5172.61 MAY 14, 1997
DEPTH LOG DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL BLOWS/6 IN. REC REMARKS
(FEET) INCREMENTS
-- (PER FOOT)
J,,// � CLAY; brown, silty, dry, medium 4-2-6
// // hard (8)
i
-- r SHALE; brown & gray, dry, iron 6-6-8
5 =----` stained, severely weathered, soft (14)
_ __ SHALE; same 10-12-17
to—
(27)
r
-4
ISHALE; same, sandy 12-14-20
is---- (32) NO G.W.
i
20--- _i SHALE; same, sandy, damp 9—115>23
32TISHALE; same, sandy, damp 10-14-20
25- (30)
- SHALE; brown, damp, sandy, some 12-50-50
— iron staining, soft (100)
30- red—brown, dry, fine EOH 30'
\ grained, severely weathered, soft
------------
'i5
9"1761
BORING LOG
SMITH GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS BORING NO. BH-2
PROJECT JOB NO. SHEET OF
TWIN MOUNDS TANK (Little Thompson) 97.028T 1 1
CLIENT FIELD ENGINEER
THE ENGINEERING COMPANY TT
DRILLING COMPANY DRILL RIG
DRILLING ENGINEERS CME 55 w/4"0 OD FLIGHT AUGER
LOCATION ELEVATION DATE
5172.14 MAY 14, 1997
DEPTH LOG DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL BLOWS/6 IN. REC REMARKS
(FEET) INCREMENTS
r, (PER FOOT)
����/r CLAY; brown, silty, dry, medium 5-3-5
�J//// plastic, medium hard 10
----T SHALE; gray, brown, orange mottled 7-7-10
5 �.L dry, iron stained, very severely (17)
—t____ weathered, soft
__-
_____
SHALE; some, sandy 10-20-20
(30)
10m__ NO G.W.
15----
-____ SHALE; brown & gray, less sand, 12-14-15
less iron stained, damp (27)
SHALE ra brown, moist, severely
-{ I weathered &, iron stained, soft 12-18-24(36)
EOH 20'
20
25-
30
is
•49 F1761
BORING LOG
SMITH GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS BORING NO. BH-3
PROJECT JOB NO. SHEET OF
TWIN MOUNDS TANK (Little Thompson) 97.028T 1 1
CLIENT FIELD ENGINEER
THE ENGINEERING COMPANY TT
DRILLING COMPANY DRILL RIG
DRILLING ENGINEERS CME 55 w/4"0 OD FLIGHT AUGER
LOCATION ELEVATION DATE
5169.09 MAY 14, 1997
DEPTH LOG DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL BLOWS/6 IN. REC REMARKS
(FEET) INCREMENTS
(PER FOOT)
jCLAY; light brown, silty, stiff, dry, 6-7-8
medium plastic (15)
CLAY; brown, silty, dry, stiff, w/some 6-5-4
)
5 grav l/shale fragments, medium 9
plastic
_ SHALE; brown, dry, soft, severely 9-25-28
to weathered, w/iron stains (53)
NO G.W.
SHALE; brown, gray, orange mottled,
15 damp, soft, sandy, severely
ir
on ron stained 13-12-18
(32)
SHALE; gray, moist, soft, some sand 12-18-24
20-� I iron stained, severely weathered (42)
SHALE; brown & gray, moist, iron 20-25-37
25— stained, severely weathered (62)
SHALE; some 15-15-29
1 (44) EOH 30'
30
991761
BORING LOG
SMITH GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS BORING NO. BH-4
PROJECT JOB NO. SHEET OF
TWIN MOUNDS TANK (Little Thompson) 97.028T 1 1
CLIENT FIELD ENGINEER
THE ENGINEERING COMPANY TT
DRILLING COMPANY DRILL RIG
DRILLING ENGINEERS CME 55 w/4"0 OD FLIGHT AUGER
LOCATION ELEVATION DATE
5168.47 MAY 14, 1997
DEPTH LOG DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL BLOWS/6 IN. REC REMARKS
(FEET) INCREMENTS
(PER FOOT)
syCLAY; brown, silty, dry, medium soft 2-2-4
medium plastic (6)
=I SHALEbrown, dry, sandy, w/some 8-7-6
5 calcite, soft, severely weathered (13)
---
— —_SHALE; brown & orange, damp, soft. 1
10—
sandy, severely weathered 8-12-15 NO G.W.
(27)
- SHALE; gray, moist, sandy, soft, 11-17-25
1s---- severely weathered (42)
---r' SHALE; some, trace sand 15-20-26 EOH 20'
— (46)
20
25
30
75
?"1761
APPENDIX C
Summary of Laboratory Test Data
Consolidation/Swell Tests
Unconfined Compressive Strength Tests
Falling Head Permeability Tests
FF1761
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST DATA
SMITH GEOTECHNICAL
Project: Twin Mounds Tan 97.028T
Dare: 16-May-97
HOLE SAMPLE TYPE t
NUMBER DEPTH OF MOISTURE DRY ATTERBERG'S PASSING UNCONFINED CONSOLIDATION/ PERMEABILITY
SAMPLE CONTENT DENSITY LL/PL #200 SIEVE COMPRESSION SWELL
(feet) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (cm/sec)
[attached] [attached] [attached]
BH-1 .5-2 SS 10.1% 104
BH-1 3.5-5 SS 13.3% _ 98 _ J x X
BH-1 8.5-10 SS
-
BH-1 13.5-15 SS 19.1%
BH-1 18.5-20 SS 17.6%
BH-1 23.5-25 SS
BH-1 28.5-30 SS
-
BH-2 .5-2 SS
BH-2 3.5-5 SS
BH-2 8.5-10 SS 14.2%
BH-2 14-15 ST
BH-2 15-16.5 _ SS
BH-2 18.5-20 SS 18.7%
BH-3 .5-2 SS 9.5% _ 99 39 / 18 X
BH-3 3.5-5 SS 7.6% 119 -
BH-3 8.5-10 SS 12.8% 112 X X X
BH-3 f 14-15 ST 18.2% 117
BH-3 15-16.5 SS
BH-3 18.5-20 SS
-
BH-3 23.5-25 SS 16.9%
e, BH-3 28.5-30 SS
"a BH-4 .5-2 SS 12.5% 47/ 15
:J
-
*41/41 BH-4 3.5-5 SS
T BH-4 9-10 ST 19.9% X
N BH-4 10-11.5 SS •
BH-4 13.5-15 SS
BH-4 18.5-20 _ SS 17.5%
i
CONSOLIDATION/SWELL TEST ASTM D4546
TWIN MOUNDS TANK BH-1 @ 3.5' - 5.0'
REMOLDED
1 .0
I
I
J 0.5
J
' W
(/) 0.0 • • ,
I
C-0.5 -I ` I , i
-1 .0 { j IIII
I
O I
•
Q -1 .5 - . _ . ,
O
J
O2 -2.0 _
Z 1 1 E
O
(.) -2.5 .
i
-3.0 ' _ _
,, i 10 100 1000 10000
: 1 I APPLIED LOAD (psf)
N
1) i
CONSOLIDATION/SWELL TEST ASTM D4546
TWIN MOUNDS TANK BH-1 3.5'-5.0'
REMOLDED
0.72 - ,
0.71IIII_
- -
0.7a - —
-------------- - ' ”'' ”'Illim
a 0.69
Ob
1
1`
0.68 - .
>j 0.67 . . . �
. -
,
,
,
0.66 { . _ - �` 1 .
I.1 0.65 r . .
P, 0.64 _, _ - , , . . .
10 100 1000 10000
APPLIED LOAD (psf)
NI
01)
F+
CONSOLIDATION/SWELL TEST ASTM D4546
TWIN MOUNDS TANK BH-3@3.5'-5.0'
REMOLDED
5.0
4.0
3.0
w
g 2.0 -
1 .0 i - -
I
O 0.0 •
-1 .0
z
O -2.0 -
F
o -3.0 - -
Oo -4.0 — - -
z
O -5.0
U
-6.0
7.0 .
10 100 1000 10000
.' APPLIED LOAD (psf)
ski
CONSOLIDATION/SWELL TEST ASTM D4546
TWIN MOUNDS TANK BH-3@3.5'-5.0'
REMOLDED
0.84 j
0.82 _ _ _ i
0.80 ,
' ' 1
00.78 I ! 1 - I
, - \'---O0.76 - _ .
0.74 - .
___\. l
0.72 _ �,_ - _ ,
1 0.70 I I I i ,
10 100 1000 10000
APPLIED LOAD (psf) •
N
CONSOLIDATION/SWELL TEST ASTM D4546
TWIN MOUNDS TANK BH-3@13.5-15.0'
5.0
4.0 - - -
3.0 - - - -
w I
0) 2.0 - -
1 .0
I
S 0.0
-1 .0 - - _ .
z
O -2.0 j _ . -
o -3.0 -- - - -
O� -4.0 - -
z
O -5.0 - —
-6.0 -t- I
-7.0 -
10 100 1000 10000
Ah APPLIED LOAD (psf)
N
CONSOLIDATION/SWELL TEST ASTM D4546
TWIN MOUNDS TANK BH-3@13.5'-15.0'
1 0.410 r I , '
, IF-- - ,_____ _i - , , .
0.405 - -----
i
0.400 -
1
O 0.395
Q , Iki , .
j 0.390 -
O
0.385 1
I
0.3$0 I I
1
0.375 . _ .
'.0 10 100 1000 10000
Ai i APPLIED LOAD (psf)
74
. CONSOLIDATION/SWELL TEST ASTM D4546
TWIN MOUNDS BH-4@8.0'-10.0' ; •
-- - 1 ' -- - ---1- ' -I -1 -- --i.._- 4 41_
ili _
1 - - r r I I
u) ► I
w
p _._._�. I I i
2 I f I
I i _ ,l ■ \I I I
. ' - -- -- ' _
�._._..... ..�-- ---i- . . !_ _: ,
..- -1-----3 -- . r ; _____ '
i 1
-4 ; 1 _ 1 I _
10 100 1000 10000
a) I PRESSURE (PSF)
1-+
CONSOLIDATION/SWELL TEST ASTM D4546
TWIN MOUNDS BH-4@8.0'-10.0'
I •
— .
. I I H. - ---- - - - • I. . i 1 I • :•• .
0.65 --- -- ---+--,---I----
_+_ -! I Ii I
- ------- -- -i-I i - - j
! ! { ! f ! I
Q 0.6 `..__..-._.:_ ...._...'....�.-- .. -..-.._..---- -+ ' �- ----._- ---I--- ' } • -
-_
•
I i
o ---- --- -- ---+-- I -
> i . : ,
o 55 -- --_I__ ! 1 I
_i_...-- __,-- - -- -
I i
.i..... i - --- ----_ - 1
:
I � i I 1 i it
0.5
10.000 100.000 1000.000 10000.000
A APPLIED LOAD (psf)
M
_. ---- _.J
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
TWIN MOUNDS BH-1 @13.5'-15'
ASTM D2166
3500
I
I
3000 '-` .
2500 ; -
i
a 2000 ------ /7 -
c
cip
I W
H 1500 -
v)
1000
i
I
500 —'
!4 0
a 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
CI
STRAIN (%)
TWIN MOUNDS TANK BH-1 3.5-51k
FALLING HEAD PERMEABILITY TEST
Remolded sample
w=18.2% DD=127pcf
1.0E-04 -
----- --- -- - _------ - - - - - - ----
U
U
h
E
U
1 .0E 05
- -
1
¢ ---1-
U.)
a
1.0E-06
02:45 PM 02:59 PM 03:13 PM
:1 JUNE 2 1997 (TIME)
T
TWIN MOUNDS TANK BH-3 13-15ft j
FALLING HEAD PERMEABILITY TEST
Remolded sample
w=18.2% DD=127pcf
1 .0E-04
U
N
N
a 1.0E-05
r
Li
_4 - — —
w —T
-r
a
to 1 .0E-06 4.. - r -J
A
02:30 PM 02:44 PM 02:58 PM 03:13 PM 03:27 PM 03:42 PM 03:56 PM
NI JUNE 2 1997 (TIME)
a)
N
i
Hello