The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About982618.tiff GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AVERY FARMS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PREPARED FOR JIM SUTTER OCTOBER 1998 SMITH GEOTECHNICAL �e 1225 RED CEDAR CIRCLE FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 (970) 490 2620 EXHIBIT AS 982618 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR AVERY FARMS Weld County, Colorado prepared for MR. JIM SUTTER PROJECT NO. 1998.056T AVERY FARMS by SMITH GEOTECHNICAL 1225 RED CEDAR CIRCLE, Suite H FORT COLLINS, COLORADO (970) 490-2620 October, 1998 IN Smith Geatechnical ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS October 6, 1998 Project No. 98.056T Mr. Jim &John Sutter Avery Farms 800 Hawkstone Drive Eaton, CO 80615 Re: Soils Investigation, Sec. 10, T6N, R65W,Weld County, Colorado Gentlemen: Smith Geotechnical has conducted a subsurface exploration program for the above referenced project. We are forwarding three (3) copies of our report presenting the results of our exploration and testing and our review. 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, SMIT TECHNICAL/Engineering Consultants C�-iZy Duane H. Smith, P.E. w/attachment 1225 Red Cedar Circle, Suite H • Fort Collins, CO 80524 • (970) 490-2620 • FAX (970) 490-2851 PERTINENT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT Many construction problems are caused by MOST GEOTECHNICAL "FINDINGS" site subsurface conditions. As troublesome as ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES. subsurface problems can be, their frequency Site exploration identifies actual subsurface and extent may be lessened considerably. conditions only at those points where samples are taken at the time of sampling. Data The following suggestions and observations derived through sampling and subsequent are offered to help you reduce the laboratory testing is extrapolated by geotechnically related delays, cost overruns, geotechnical engineers who then render an and other costly headaches that can occur opinion about overall subsurface conditions, during a construction project. their likely reaction to proposed construction activity, and appropriate foundation design. Even under optimal circumstances actual A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING conditions may differ from those inferred to REPORT IS BASED UPON A UNIQUE exist, because even the most qualified SET OF PROJECT SPECIFIC FACTORS. geotechnical engineer and the most extensive A geotechnical engineering report is based on subsurface exploration program cannot reveal a subsurface exploration plan designed to what is hidden by earth and rock. The actual investigate a unique set of project specific interface between materials may be far more factors. These typically include: (1) the gradual or abrupt than a report indicates. general nature of the structures involved, (2) Actual conditions in areas not sampled may the structures' sizes and configurations, (3) differ from predictions. Nothing can be done the locations and orientation of the structures to prevent the unanticipated, but steps can be on the site, (4) additional entities such as taken to help minimize their impact. For this access roads, parking lots, and underground reason, most experienced owners retain their utilities, and (5) the level of additional risk geotechnical consultants throughout the which the client assumed by virtue of construction stage to identify variances, to limitations imposed upon the exploratory conduct additional tests which may be needed, program. To help avoid costly problems, and to recommend solutions to problems consult a qualified geotechnical engineer to encountered on site. determine how any factors which change subsequent to the date of the report may affect its recommendations. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE. Unless your consulting geotechnical engineer Subsurface conditions may be modified by indicates otherwise, your geotechnical natural or man made forces. Because a engineering report should not be used: geotechnical engineering report is based on • When the nature of the proposed structure conditions which existed at the time of the is changed subsurface exploration. Construction decisions • When the size or configuration of the should not be based on a geotechnical proposed structure is changed significantly engineering report whose adequacy may have • When the location or orientation of the been affected by natural or man made forces. proposed structure is modified Speak with the geotechnical consultant to professionals to explain relevant geotechnical learn if additional tests are advisable before findings and to review the adequacy of their construction starts. Construction operations at plans and specifications relative to or adjacent to the site, and natural events such geotechnical issues. as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations will affect subsurface conditions and thus affect the adequacy of the BORING LOGS SHOULD NOT BE geotechnical report. The geotechnical SEPARATED FROM THE engineer should be consulted on any such ENGINEERING REPORT. events to determine if additional tests are Final boring logs are developed by necessary. geotechnical engineers based on their interpretation of their field logs and laboratory evaluation of field samples. Only final boring GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE logs customarily are included in geotechnical PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC reports. These logs should not be reproduced PURPOSES AND PERSONS. for inclusion in architectural or other drawings Geotechnical engineers' reports are prepared because drafters may commit errors or to meet the specific needs of specific omissions in the transfer process. Although individuals. A report prepared for a photocopy reproduction eliminates this consulting civil engineer may not be adequate problem, it does nothing to minimize the for a construction contractor or even some possibility of contractors misinterpreting the other consulting civil engineer. Unless logs during bid preparation. When this indicated otherwise, this report was prepared occurs, delays, disputes, and unanticipated expressly for the client involved and expressly costs may result. To minimize the likelihood for purposes indicated by the client. Use by of boring log misinterpretation, give any other persons for any purpose, or by the contractors ready access to the complete client for a different purpose, may result in geotechnical engineering report prepared for problems. No individual other than the client the project. Those who do not provide such should apply this report for its intended access may proceed under the mistaken purpose without first consulting with a impression that simply disclaiming qualified geotechnical engineer. No person responsibility for the accuracy of subsurface should apply this report for any purpose other information always insulates them from than that for which it was initially intended attendant liability. Providing the best without first conferring with a geotechnical available information to contractors helps to engineer. prevent costly construction problems which may occur. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT IS SUBJECT TO OTHER STEPS YOU CAN TAKE TO MISINTERPRETATION. REDUCE RISK. Costly problems can occur when other design Your consulting geotechnical engineer will be professionals develop their plans based on pleased to discuss other techniques which can misinterpretations of a geotechnical be employed to minimize any risk. In engineering report. To help avoid these addition, many engineering organizations have problems, a geotechnical engineer should be developed a variety of materials which may retained to work with other appropriate design be beneficial. A. INTRODUCTION A.1 PROJECT INFORMATION This report summarizes the subsurface investigations, laboratory testing, conclusions, and recommendations as prepared by SMITH GEOTECHNICAL for Avery Farms Subdivision. This report was prepared for Mr. Jim Sutter. A.2 SCOPE OF SERVICE The scope of service for this subsurface exploration was limited to: 1. Advancement of six (6) borings to depths up to thirty (30) feet below the ground surface to obtain soil samples. 2. Visual classification of soil samples obtained. 3. Laboratory testing of soil samples. 4. Analysis of results of soil classifications and laboratory testing to determine foundation recommendations with regard to bearing capacity, swell potential, and settlement. A.3 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The site investigated is in the West 'h of Section 10, Township 6 North, Range 65 West of the 6th Prime Meridian, Weld County, Colorado. It consists of approximately 13.28 acres of rolling farmland. The eastern boundary of the site is highest in elevation and slopes down to the northwest at an approximate grade of 2%. The site is bounded on the west by an irrigation ditch. A.4 REPORT FORMAT The purposes of this report are to present results of field observations and visual classification of soils, to summarize laboratory results, and to provide engineering recommendations. Provided in Appendix A to this report is a Boring Location Plan showing boring locations with respect to existing and proposed features. Appendix B contains the Boring Logs that summarize the subsurface conditions B. EXPLORATION RESULTS B.1 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The geologic conditions were reviewed by consulting the geologic map of Colorado by Ogden Tweto of the U.S. Geologic Survey, 1979. A copy of a portion of this map is included herein as Figure B1. The site lies within the Denver,Basin tectonic province. The predominant geologic formation, as indicated on the map by the symbol Kl, is the Laramie Formation, which consists of shale, claystone, sandstone, and major coal beds. This formation consists of sedimentary rocks of the Cretaceous Age. The unconsolidated overburden clay and sand layers at the site are derived from weathering and wind erosion of this formation. • I 11 KPI '� tr KI i KP �, 1 io PNI! .r '�. r KI le. Kf { .-. _. 'f'nr�„/ I u 1 8r,gj 1 i G W 7 /; E 411 / .-t .— Felurti _ . ' Kpur • , . . - e QaT ail Qe i61-4,:i ej41Ye 'r IN?-'1‘\ _� Qe Evnm " '.. I m or '_ • it Kt, r L3 SrIIN f_ \bPnl \ t. Q4 1 Ih ud KI. —.... _ M IIq �1 I.r L _.. ottrh lIT - 1- ' ! 1 KI ,I __ - 1 �11 11t,n1 ' Q9a 1 1 ` •� p l 3 tt �. I Cia '1 ,, - ,-- tri o , ,cl I,'II, I a v KI I / .. Ir C6 � � _� .1 _ ---I-- -rT—� .a, ,� v b Klt , .ei 1 �jie-' V 711L18S1�L 11 ir /fdV,� v 11 ; , J h l r I I F o TKda �/ i t t 1 t -Br fr t Hendeq , _-.. Qe A 1� Qe f vl ] it 1LYc 16 �i A \� 1t I iS > V. Il�' tc,( In iierce City TKdI ( 1 ,l 2 r I �M1tNf �� 1 4i 1 ENVER 1 „_�e' - 'kw F �/n .• OP Qe OE { ` Oe °P l � I � Q9 . \\ r� \,1/ 4 )t 1 1 I IMd GEOLOGIC MAP SMITH GEOTECHNICAT FIGURE $' FORT COLLINS, COLORADO B.2 SCOPE OF EXPLORATION The field work conducted on September 2, 1998, consisted of drilling and sampling six (6) borings, to depths up to thirty (30) feet below existing grade for the purpose of gathering area subsurface data within the vicinity of the proposed development. B.3 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES The borings were advanced with a CME-55 drilling rig equipped with a four (4) inch diameter continuous flight auger. Samples were recovered from the borings for visual classification (ASTM D- 2488) and for laboratory testing. Disturbed soil sampling was performed in accordance with ASTM D-1586, Standard Penetration Test (SPT). Using this procedure, a two (2) inch outside diameter split-barrel sampler was driven into the soil by successive blows of a one hundred forty (140) pound weight falling thirty inches. After an initial set of six (6) inches, the number of blows required to drive the sampler an additional twelve inches was recorded as the "penetration resistance" or "N value". The N value is an index of the relative density of cohesionless soils and of the consistency of cohesive soils. A limited number of undisturbed soil samples were retrieved using two and a half (2 'fe) inch diameter thin walled Shelby tubes pushed slowly into the soil in accordance with ASTM D 1587. These samples are relatively undisturbed and can be used for strength and consolidation testing. Some samples were also obtained using a California Sampler which consists of a two and a half(2 1) inch outside diameter barrel with a two (2) inch internal brass liner. This sampler is driven into the soil in a similar manner as the split-spoon sampler by successive blows of a one hundred forty (140) pound weight falling thirty inches. These samples provide relatively undisturbed samples that can be used for strength and consolidation testing. However, these samples were not as undisturbed as the Shelby Tube samples and the degree of disturbance must be considered when using test results from these samples. As the samples were obtained in the field, an Engineer from SMITH GEOTECHNICAL visually classified them. Representative portions of the samples were then transported to the laboratory for further examination and verification of field classification. Boring logs, indicating the depth and identification of the various strata, the N values, water level information, and pertinent information regarding the methods of advancing and maintaining the drill holes are included in the appendix. Charts illustrating the soil classification procedure, and descriptive terminology and symbols on the Boring Logs are also included in the appendix. B.4 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 throughout the site are well represented by the borings. During construction, if conditions are encountered that differ from those described below and as shown on the Boring Logs included in the appendix to this report, a geotechnical engineer should be consulted to evaluate the exposed conditions and their effect on our recommendations. 2 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) CLAY: A layer of soft, silty, sandy clay was found in borings BH-1 through BH-3. Those borings were on the eastern ' of the site that is higher in elevation than the western ' of the site. This clay is brown and moist and extends from the ground surface to a depth ranging from three (3) to six (6) feet. Consolidation tests on samples from BH-1 and BH-3 showed no swell in this layer. (2) SAND: A layer of medium dense clayey sand was found in all borings except BH-4. The layer is approximately eight (8) feet thick in borings BH-1 through BH-3 and approximately fifteen (15) feet thick in boring BH-5. SPT-N values range from eleven (11) to thirty-seven (37) blows per foot (bpf). The amounts of silt and clay mixed with the sand in this layer vary with location. Consolidation tests on samples from BH-3 and BH-5 show moderate swell potential with the sample from BH-5 swelling up to 0.8% above its original height at a pressure of 1800 psf. (3) SANDSTONE: Completely weathered sandstone was found below the sand layer in borings BH-2B and BH-3. (4) SILT: A layer of medium dense to dense sandy silt was found below the sand layer in borings BH-1 and BH-5 at a depth of approximately fourteen (14) feet. The silt is light brown and has low plasticity. SPT- N values range from nine (9) to forty-one (41) bpf. (5) SHALE: Moderately weathered shale lies below the silt in BH-5. It is dark gray in color and has medium plasticity. (6) CLAY: A layer of very stiff, highly plastic, expansive clay was found in BH-4 at a depth of approximately 5.5 feet. This clay was not found in the other borings. The clay has a high swell potential. A consolidation test on a sample from the boring swelled 4% above its original height with a swell pressure of approximately 9000 psf. B.5 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 or irrigation prior to drilling should be known when using the groundwater readings from the boring logs to extrapolate water levels at other points in time. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of seven (7) feet in BH-1 and BH-2B and at a depth of eight (8) feet in BH-3 at the time of drilling. Groundwater was not encountered in borings BH-4 or BH-5 at the time of drilling. The field uphill from the site (to the east) had been irrigated less than 24 hours prior to the drilling. 3 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. C.2 DISCUSSION The subsurface conditions vary considerably over the site. The eastern portion (on the uphill side) of the site is overlain by a non-expansive, medium-soft, silty clay layer. The silty clay layer transitions to a clayey sand at depths ranging from four (4) to seven (7) feet below the surface. The sand layer contains varying amounts of clay and has moderate swell potential. Very dense silt or sandstone was found below the sand layer. Suitable foundations can be engineered to bear on the clayey sand if the proper precautions are taken. A layer of highly plastic, highly-expansive clay was found in BH-4. The ground surface elevation at this site was approximately five (5) feet below the ground surface elevation of the eastern boundary of the site. It is possible that a lens of this clay material runs along the length of the site where the ground surface has similar elevation. This material is not suitable for supporting foundations due to its high swell potential. A moderately weathered shale lies approximately thirty (30) feet below the lowest portion of the site (the northeast corner). This material would be suitable for supporting drilled piers. The site is suitable for the construction of individual residential homes if the proper precautions are taken to guard against damage from swelling soils. However, the soil conditions vary significantly over the site and therefore, we recommend separate subsurface investigations for specific building sites. C.3 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS C.3.1 Lots 1,3,4,5: Spread Footings Spread footings bearing on the moderately expansive clayey sand layer may be used with special precautions taken to keep water away from the foundations. The footings should be designed so that they bear at a level above the groundwater level. The maximum bearing pressure for the footings bearing on the native sandy material shall be 2500 pounds per square foot (full dead plus live load) and the minimum dead load shall be 1000 pounds per square foot to counteract the swell pressures. Footings shall be sized to produce an even distribution of loads throughout the foundation footprint area. Footings designed for the loads indicated above would be expected to produce settlements less than one inch. 4 C.3.2 Lot 2: Foundations are not recommended to bear on the soils encountered on Lot 2 (BH-4). It is recommended that the soils be overexcavated at least six (6) feet below the foundation bearing level and replaced with approved non-expansive soil. The clayey sands found on the project site could be used as structural fill. These materials should be compacted to a minimum of 98% of the maximum dry density as determined by a standard proctor test (ASTM D 698), at ± 2% of the optimum moisture content. Alternatively, additional borings could be made at specific building sites on Lot 2 to determine if the sand layer found in other lots is present on Lot 2 and to evaluate its suitability for foundation bearing if it exists. C.3.3 Basement Construction Basement construction will be acceptable if the bearing level is located above the groundwater level. Basement walls shall be in accordance with ACI 318 and other codes as appropriate, and shall have reinforcing steel proportioned to resist all lateral and vertical loads. We recommend installation of a perimeter drain with an interior sump for all basements to provide additional protection against high groundwater. C.3.4 Slabs Slabs-on-grade bearing on the clayey sand layer are acceptable if designed properly. The slabs should be isolated from all footings, columns, and other bearing components and all walls bearing on the slabs shall be constructed to "float" by using a double-plate expansion joint which allows vertical movement. Due to the potential for movement, we recommend that the slabs be reinforced with No. 4 reinforcing steel placed at 18-inch centers in each direction. The minimum slab thickness should be 5 inches to allow adequate cover on the reinforcing steel. Surface slabs such as driveways and slabs will most likely move due to the swelling soils and likewise should be thickened and reinforced as noted. Slabs shall be designed in accordance with ACI 318 and ACI 360R-92. Slabs should not be designed to bear on the soils found in BH-4 or on any soils encountered on any of the lots that exhibit characteristics similar to the soils found in BH-4. C.3.5 Frost and Foundation Depth Considerations The foundation should be placed at least 30-inches below the final exterior grade to provide proper protection from frost damage. C.4 SITE PREPARATION The site should be stripped of any and all organic materials, topsoil, vegetation, asphalt, and refuse, prior to any work being conducted. These materials should not be used as fill or backfill for any structures proposed for the site. C.5 FILL REQUIREMENTS All fills supporting buildings or structures shall be designed by a geotechnical engineer. They shall be compacted to a minimum of 98% of the maximum dry density as determined by a standard proctor test 5 (ASTM D 698), at± 2% of the optimum moisture content. It is recommended that any fill required for structural application should be constructed using pit run, or other granular, or non-expansive soils. All fills that will support structures or slabs should be tested by a geotechnical engineer after placement to assure adequate and uniform density is obtained. C.6 BACKFILL REQUIREMENTS Backfill around any onsite structures may utilize the existing non-expansive site materials and should be placed to at least 90% of the maximum dry density determined and at ± 2% of optimum moisture as determined by a standard Proctor test. Where the backfill will support a structure or concrete slab, we recommend the use pit run or other granular, approved, non-expansive soils compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density and at ± 2% of optimum moisture as determined by a standard Proctor test. C.7 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 1.) Provide proper drainage around all structures to minimize infiltration of water. Slope a minimum of 2% from the structure. 2.) Provide all down spouts with extensions to assure that rain runoff is not directed into the foundation backfill. 3.) Do not plant shrubs or trees adjacent to the foundation if they require significant amounts of watering or have large root systems in the backfill zone. 4.) Do not place sprinkler systems in the backfill zone adjacent to the foundations where the potential for water line breaks or leakage will saturate the foundation area. 5.) All plumbing that penetrates slabs or foundation walls should be isolated with a pipe sleeve and flexible expansion material to minimize the potential for damage due to slab movement. 6.) All slabs should have control joints at 10-foot spacing with a depth of 1/4 of the slab thickness. All exterior slabs adjacent to structures should have a minimum 2% slope away from the structure. All non-structural slabs should be isolated from structures and allowed to "float". Expansion joint material should be used to isolate slabs from all structural components. Near surface slabs or slabs bearing on the clay will heave with time and must be isolated. 7.) All concrete should use TYPE II or TYPE I-II cement. We recommend all structural concrete have a minimum cement content of 564 pounds per cubic yard, a maximum water/cement ratio of 0.48, a 6±1% air content, a maximum 4" slump, and 1-inch maximum size aggregate with fine aggregate content in the range of 40% to 50% of the total aggregate. 6 D. OBSERVATION AND TESTING Since a project of this nature requires many soil-related judgments and decisions, we recommend that an experienced geotechnical engineer be retained as part of the construction team. We strongly recommend that all holes drilled for piers be inspected visually by a geotechnical engineer or trained technician prior to placing concrete. Any unsuitable or wet soil conditions existing within the holes can then be delineated before pier placement. 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 are based on currently accepted engineering procedures at this time and location. Other than this, no warranty, either expressed or implied, is intended. Prepared and submitted by: Reviewed by: SMITH GEOTECHNICAL - 4//1/4 M11444 David W. Marsh, Engineer Intern Duane 6 , P.E. Ittte knimator 7 APPENDIX A Boring Location Plan e BH-5 LOT 1 e BH-4 LOT 2 a BH-3 LOT 3 s BH-2B 6 BH-2A LOT 4 m BH-1 LOT 5 BORING LOCATIONS PROJECT# 98-056T SCALE: 1 "=20' DRAWN BY: DWM 5C!Smith Ceo AVERY FARMS OCTOBER 1998 PAGE 1 OF 1 ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS APPENDIX B Unified Soil Classification System Description of Terms Key to Boring Logs Boring Logs Unified Soil Classification Field Idcnt,5ca,mn Procedures Group Information Required for Laboratory Classu&atlon (Excluding particles larger than 31n.and baling fractions on Symbols Typical Names estimated weights) a _ Describing Soils Criteria•Wide range in grain size and substantial Well graded gravels, gravel- Cu .• ��° Greater than 4 c amounts of all intermediate particle CW sand mixtures, little or no b c s(b s sins Ones Girt typical name: Indium an- - 2≥! C — °d Between I and 3 $5 9 , roximate percentages of sand e E 0 D1 x Dsa e`" a xix Predominantly one aloe or range of sins Poorly graded travels. travel- and gravel; le conum tile: ` �� :Y Y andhangularity. surface condition, U" with some Intermediate sizes missing GP sand mixtures,little or no Ones c _c ` Not mating all gradation requirements forGW 7.1.- ,. and Aarocal of the coarse _ ^y grains; local or geologic name ° dt p: o E'.. 5 0,- Nonplastic Ones (for IdentlOca lion pro- Silty gravels, poorly graded and other pertinent descriptive c P. C Aucrbe« limlu below Above "A" line 2Z g 2 '3 •0 ccdures ice ML below) cm graveLund-silt mixtures information: and symbols In c o aNN "A" line, or Pt lees with P/ between _�v et .s "z' parentheses e a =YitB than1 4 and 7 are a Y c E': S` -( •Ye oEe Plastic fines(for idemi0eation procedures, Clayey [fave It. poorly graded For undisturbed solo addlnforrma- ...11..:...7. Aucrbcea Ilmiu above requiring r. of a U „ 144 CL below) CC gravel-sand-clay mixures lion on algatifiutlon,du see e( ,� - —iii = "A"line,with f/ squiring taw of E`o 8 � c.2 compactness. cementation. .E o 21$°L'-lt.q greater than 7 dual symbols O= o c moisture conditions and c 0ii.2 _ D 'y aZ a Wide range In train slur and substantial drainage characteristics o`UU�� Cu0 Greater than 6 0 o aWell graded sands, gravelly a c o 0 D :. E< _ i amounts of all Intermediate particle SW w g ` i _ sands,little or no Ones _ p _ '= o≤ c "ac sizesExample: c - S 0 °d Between I and) ✓ — u c y s e _ Silty and,gravelly: about 30 es c J -- 0 DI°X Dw e = ..;3.1-, S 0 s hard,angular gravel particles �_ I., .. e y'P V'" Predominantly one size or a range of slits SP Poorly traded sands, gravelly I-In,maximum slit: rounded a , w,c 8 Not meettve all gradation require-menu for S W L :e vv _ with some Intermediate silts missing sands,little or no Ones and subanguhr sand trains a pi, c:e c ye i coarse to One,about 15;:non- 5 "� Nonplastic Ones (for identification pro- Silty sands.poorly graded sand- plastic Ones with low dry T. E Y c es Auubers limits below Above "A" lint Z n " o SM strength: well compacted and 0'=+3 N "A"line or Pilau Ono with PI between • udusts,arc ML below) silt mixtures moist in place, alluvial sand; €c§.8 n 5 4 sad ] a« E e „ "c!,S S' (SM) q g lwrder/Me fines • Atterbert limits below - I H uE Plastic cCL below) ow)OmtiOotion procedures. SC Clayey sands, poorly graded ••A" line with f/ nq Wrin[ of -. and-clay mixtures C dual symbols — sewer loan] Iden,lies lion Procedures on Fraction Smaller than No.40 Sieve Size X Dry Strength Toughness (crushing Dita fancy (consistency „mew. (reaction near Plastic - 50 1 I f a m shaking) = teas at ml li laical a Comparing a9 liquid steal '/ ri: 50 { I r' - Inorganic tilt and very One Give typical name; Indicate degree E n Inn 1 I I r� E a None to Quick to sands, rock flour, silty or - 8 - None ML and character of plasticity, 0 40—%valta aM dry s1raN i°vtasa - - e ❑ight slow clayey ta et' One sands with alight amount and maximum size of e p um lvuusug ooiudo bees a �• v Z e..::: coarse grains: colour In wet ,.b30 ." ___ Inorganic clays of low to condition,odour If any,local or 0 " v Medium to None to Medium CL medium Plasticity, gravelly geologic name,and other peril- //) - 8 e H high very slow clays,tanay clays,silty clays, nem descriptive information. ` ". 20 /` txl L lean clays and symbol In parentheses L' a v c Z slight to Organic silts and organic fill- YN Ste medium Slow Slight OL clays of low plasticity J ]t-YL Cl se For undisturbed tolls add lessor- % 10— Inorganic silts, micaceous or nation on structure, sttturca- —WI pf— _ Sliel+t to Slow to Slight to lion,ednsinenry In undisturbed 0 medium none medium MR silly y soils, One sandy dr and remoulded states,moisture 9 E0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ` •.- _ orga is elastic slits and drainage conditions F $v'p e, None High CH inorganic clays of high pies. Liquid limit very high 'icily,fat clays Fsample: 2y Clayey silt, brown: slightly Plasticity chart Medium to None to Slight to Organic clays of medium to high Y4Y h to v w high very slow medium OX plasticity plastic: small percentage of for laboratory classification of fine grained SOUS Readily Idcmited by colour, odour, fine sand; numerous vertical Peat and other highly organic root holes: O(M and dry in Highly Organic Soils aponsy feel and frequently by fibrous PI soils place: loco; (ML) texture From Wagner,195]. Boundary claallfemlmar. Sots possessing characteristics of two groups are designated by combinations of group symbols. For example CW-GC,well graded gravel-nand mixture with clay binder. b All sieve tits on this than arc U.S.standard. Field Identification Procedure for Fine Grained Soils or TOW/1041 These procedures are to be performed on the minus No.40 sieve size particles,approximately 11g In, For field classification purposes,screening Is not intended,simply remove by hand the coarse particles that interfere with the mu. DOamnry(Reaction to shaking): Dry Strength(Crushing characteristics): TougMrn(Consistency nut plastic limit): After removing partidu larger than No.40 sieve size,prepare a pat of After removing particles larger than No.40 sieve size,mould a pat of soil After removing particles larger than the No.40 sieve else,a specimen of moist soil with a volume of about one-half cubic inch. Add enough to the consistency of putty.adding water If necessary. Allow the pat to son about one-ha,f loch cube In sirs,Is moulded to she consistency of water if necessary to make the soil soft but not sticky. dry completely by oven,sun or air dryrying,and then test its strength by putty. If too dry, water must be added and If sticky, she specimen Place the pat in the open pain of one hand and shake horizontally,striking breaking and crumbling between the fingers. This strength is a measure should be spread out In a thin layer and allowed to lose soon moisture vigorously against the other hand several times. A positive reaction of the character and quantity of the colloidal fraction contained in the by evaporation. Then the specimen Is rolled out by hand on a smooth consists of the appearance of water on the surface of the pat which soil. The dry strength increases with Increasing plasticity. surface or between the palms Into a thread about one cleat Inch In changes to a livery consistency and becomes glossy. When the sample High dry strength is characteristic for clays of the CH group. A typical diameter. The thread is then folded and re-rolled reputedly. During is squeezed between the fin sets,the water and gloss disappear from the Inorganic silt possesses only very slight dry strength. Silty One sands this manipulation the moisture content Is gradually reduced and the surface.the psi stiffens and finally it cracks or crumbles. The rapidity and slitshave about thesameslight dry strength,but can be distinguished specimen aliens, finally loses Its plasticity, and crumbles when the of appearance of water during shaking and of Its disappearance during by the feel when powdering the dried specimen. Fine sand feels gritty plastic limit b ruched. as sist in o in Identifying the character of the lines Ina toll. whereas a typical silt has the smooth feel of flour, w After the thread crumbles, the ple should be lumped together and a very fine cleaner sands give the quickest and most distinct reaction whereas slight kneading action continued until the lump crumbles. a plastic clay has no ruction. Inorganic silts, such as a typical rock The tougher the thread near the plastic limit and the stirrer the lump when dour,show a moderately quick reaction. It finally crumbles.the more potent Is the colloidal clay fraction In We toll. Weakness of the thread at the plastic limit and quick Lou of coherence of the lump below the plastic limit indicate tither Inortanlc clay of low piutklty,or materials such as kaolln-type clays and organic clayys which occur below the A-line, Highly Organic clays have a very weak and spongy feel at the plastic limit. STIFFNESS/ RELATIVE IYENSI1-IES OF SOILS BASED ON SET N-VALUES CLAYEY SOILS SANDY SOILS UNCONFINED RELATIVE N CONSISTENCY COMPRESSIVE N DESCRIPTION DENSISTY STRENGTH (psi) 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 I4ard 8000-16000 DESCRIPTION OF ROC% 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 fin 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. • KEY TO BORING LOGS soil and Rock Samplers 111ICI III—I 1 TOPSOIL CALIFORNIA -III I I-III-III- r - - r - FILL SPLIT BARREL .. . .. .. ....../ SILT SHELBY TUBE <,A CLAY AUGER CUTTINGS ?_=;':: SAND > BAG SAMPLE „ aao`je 00000 GRAVEL nn Symbols SHALE AND CLAYSTONE WATER TABLE ' * * SANDSTONE - • / BEDROCK , INDEFINITE BOUNDARY 7 ` WEATHERED BEDROCK 1 . : - '. : f .'. ASPHALT I \ S' ith Gaotechntcat ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS / : DECOMPOSED GRANITE 1 BORING LOGS BH-1 BH-2A BH-28 ELEVATION ELEVATION (FEET) (FEET) - 2-2 8-8-8 - r (4) (16) - 4 MIT - 95 _ 5 6 5-6 7 8 95 REFUSAL (11 ) 7 0" 4 r('' (15) - 7'0" 50/0.' 90 (12) (15) - 90 - - ,....- 14-27 : : : _ .....- 85- (41) 40_50 85 - •.... .. .. - - •.... - - ..... . . . - - ..... • • • - - •.... - — ..... • . . - ..... - -...._ — ,ne, 14-19 FOH © . . . .II50 80 - (33) 20'0" 0^ - eo ..... - - •.... - - ..... - 10-9 _ 75 (1 9) 75 - EOH © 1 8-12 - - 26'0" (20) 70 - 70 65 - 65 60- - 60 S Smaitth Qoachnical ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS i BORING LOGS BH-3 BH-4 BH-5 ELEVATION ELEVATION (FEET) (FEET) _ 76-6-4 _ (10) 95_ 7-7-9 ,.., - 2-2 ...... _ ... (4) .... - 90 ' % 2 12 90 (14) 14 23 _ - (37) = 27-38 - _ - (65) I -5-6-6(11 ) _ _ 85 - - - 85 36 _50 6.. 3„ j - _ 3-3 80 t�o"� /� (28)16 (s) _ 80 EOH © _ 26_54 - 20'0" 6„ 5 � 3 3 - _ 75 - - 75 :fl, - - .... - - - .... - 5-14 - - .... - - - .... (19) - - . .... - _ .... - 70 //// 70 .... - 20'-0"Q 5-6 - ....- - .... (1 1) - .... 65 //// 65 - .... - .... - .... - 3-6 - .... 60 .. 60 - i..i - EOH Q -� 35_50 - 30,0„ --- 6.. 5.. — $C Smith l Oeotechnical J ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS APPENDIX C Summary of Laboratory Tests Consolidation/Swell Tests SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS JOB NAME: Avery Farms JOB NUMBER: 98-056T Oct-98 BORING/Depth Sample Type / Description Blows/6" Increment Moisture Dry Density Atterbergs Cons/Swell* 200 Wash (ft) Recovery (per 12" increment) (%) (pcf) LL/PL , sweu Press./%Swell % Passing 1 0'-2' SS / 0" CLAY w/ SILT 2-2 (4) 13.2 4'-5.5' ST / 6" SAND w/CLAY 14.9 105 24/22 NO SWELL 27.4 5.5'-6.5' SS / 0" SAND w/CLAY 5-6 (11) 7'-9' ST / 8" SAND 19.7 23.5 9'-10' CA / 8" SAND w/SILT 2-10 (12) 16.0 119 45.9 13'-14' CA / 4" SILT 14-27 (41) 19'-20' SS / 6" SILT 14-19 (33) 21.9 32/N.P. 92.3 24'-25' CA / 0" CLAY 10-9 (19) _ 25'-26' SS / 8" CLAY 8-12 (20) 25.4 43/18 87.6 2A 0'-2' SS / 1" CLAY w/SILT 8-8-8 (16) 4'-5.5' ST / 12' SAND w/CLAY 14.2 98 37.1 5.5'-6.5' CA / 4" SAND w/CLAY 5-6 (11) 7'-8' ST / 6"' SAND w/SILT 8' CA / 0" REFUSAL 25/0" 2B 4' - 5.5' CA / 8" SAND w/CLAY 7-8 (15) 7.2 124 41.8 7'-9' CA / 10" SAND 7-8 (15) 12.5 116 NO SWELL 19.9 14'-15' CA / 10" SAND 40/6"-50/3" 23.9 104 19'-20' CA / 0" SANDSTONE 50/0" 16.3 117 * See attached graphs BORING/Depth Sample Type / Description Blows/6" Increment Moisture Dry Density Atterbergs Cons/Swell* 200 Wash (ft) Recovery (per 12" increment) (%) (pcf) LL/PL Swell Press./ %Swell % Passing _ 3 0'-2' SS / 1" CLAY w/SILT 6-6-4 (10) 4'-5.5' ST / 14" CLAY w/SAND 21.2 101 31/17 NO SWELL 74.3 5.5'-6.5' CA / 3" CLAY w/SAND 2-2 (4) 18.5 7'-9' ST / 12" SAND w/CLAY 21.9 99 1500 psf/ 0.7 % 36.2 9'-10' CA / 12" SAND 14-23 (37) 19.1 103 _ 14'-15' CA / 0" SANDSTONE 36/6"-50/3" 19'-20' SS / 6" SANDSTONE 26/6"-54/5" 4 0'-2' SS / 3" SILT 7-7-9 (16) 4'-5.5' ST / 12" SILT w/SAND 12.8 109 N.P. 800 psf/ 0.4 % 79.9 5.5'-6.5' CA / 7" CLAY 2-12 (14) 16.4 111 36/19 9000 psf/ 4.1 % 7'-9' CA / 8" CLAY 27-38 (65) 10.5 34/16 4200 psf/ 3.2 % 92.7 _ 14'-15' SS / 15" CLAY 12-16 (28) 18.4 62/21 95.9 5 0'-2' SS / 2" SAND w/SILT 5-6-6 (11) 4'-5.5' ST / 20" SAND w/SILT 5.6 96 NO SWELL 34.8 5.5'-6.5' CA / 10" SAND w/SILT 3-3 (6) 5.9 104 7'-9' ST / 19" SAND w/SILT 9.5 107 1800 psf/ 0.8 % 38.6 9'-10' CA / 8" SAND w/SILT 3-3 (6) 10.8 105 14'-15' CA / 12" SILT w/SAND 5-14 (19) 9.9 109 30/23 64.4 19'-20' CA / 12" SILT w/SAND 5-6 (11) 24'-25' CA / 8" SILT w/SAND 3-6 (9) 8.8 124 29'-30' SS / 12' SHALE 35/6"-50/5" 16.8 101 44/20 * See attached graphs Consolidation/Swell Test Avery Farms, BH 1 @ 4'-5.5' 1 I r1i1 11 1 0 I Dry Density = 105 pcf I Moisture = 14.9% 2.20" Shelby Sample 1 I 1 -1 I j Tii3 I ! 1 a _3 f - - I O ca I Inundated I s ... i t O I I I I I I i I E , I 1 o i -5 I - - ; . I - I � I c ' I : T I -7 --- -I --- 1 I -8 I i IJ l lI l ; 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Consolidation/Swell Test Avery Farms, BH 1 @ 4'-5.5' 0.60 ; � , Dry Density = 105 pcf 0.58 Moisture = 14.9% I I I I 2.20" Shelby Sample I 0.56 T f � J ; I I I ; i I i s I I I ; • 0.54 —.. .. I I 0.52 — I I I ! Inundated_i G i i i 0.50 el i I a _ _ I O ' 1 0.48 - ' 7 -' I � I i I 1 j 0.46 - 4.- I ! I i ! 0.44 - I 1 0.42 I f i ' i I I ! I ` ! I 0.40 i ; ! - , l I I I 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Consolidation/Swell Test Avery Farms, BH 2B @ 7'-9' 1 — ! I I I MI I I l ( Dry Density = 116 pcf ! ' 0.5 - i ; Moisture = 12.5% I ! i I I I California Sample i ' II ` � I � / 0 I I ? i ; i c -0.5 - i - .r 1 [Imndaud w T r o l e 3 I I -1.5 - I I i 4 I -2 - _ i i I I I -2.5 --- I I f 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Consolidation/Swell Test Avery Farms, BH 2B © 7'-9' 0.425 - I I 1 ' , � i . - i k 1 I i i ' i Dry Density = 116 pcf 0.420 - Moisture = 12.5% California Sample I I 0.415 I _ _ 11 , ! ! 0.410 -- iI-- ; - 11.7 Inundated c1 0.405 . _ . I i a .o I 0.400 - - lk- I i... I 1I i � 0.395 — ........__. _ ---I ± k ! 0.390 -- , I , I ! I I f I i I I k I i t i 0.385 • I I ' I I , 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Consolidation/Swell Test Avery Farms, BH 3 @ 4'-5.5' 2 I ? ! Ali i I I �� 1 Dry Density = 96 pcf I Moisture = 21.2% I I ll I 2.5" Shelby Sample 0 _ J I . I i I —1 Inundated/ _ . 7i 3 . I , cf) ! I I i ! ! c _2 I ' f _ _ ! H O � I 7.1 i b I ? E ( i O . . I ! tI 5 — - -. I I I . I ii -6 — ----t : i 1 1 I I I • I { I I I l I I I 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Consolidation/Swell Test Avery Farms, BH 3 @ 4'-5.5' 0.74 I I I r , i ' Dry Density = 96 pcf ! Moisture = 21.2% 0.72 - I I I I I 2.5" Shelby Sample ' I I I I 1 I 4 JI I ; ; I ! I I 0.70 I 1 i I Inundated i ' I I i i i 1 ' a 0.68 T I i I `° i � i i a ' 1 b ! I I i .s 0.66 • l_.-__.._ .__-� i i -�__._.._._ ....._..._._.Y i-� 1 ; i 0.64 --.- •-- , ••••, i .• _ I ! 0.62 - I , I {{ I I II I I ! I i • i I I I I I 0.60 , - I I I I 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psi) Consolidation/Swell Test Avery Farms, BH 3 @ 7'-9' Dry Density = 105 pcf 0 - I i 1 I l Moisture = 21.9% i I ! I I 2.5" Shelby Sample cn I o -2 - I • r c I :a i 1 I ti U r e I Inundated i r i i -4 i -5 -- �— -- — ! I ! ' 4 i i ii I ' I Il I �+ it F ! , i -V I 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Consolidation/Swell Test Avery Farms, BH 3 @ 7'-91 0.59 I , /1_ , , , , , , I Dry Density = 105 pcf 0.58 - r Moisture •= 21.9% ' ! 2.5" Shelby Sample 0.57 - - i i . --- -i I - I I ` I ! 1 1 I I ; i , H 0.56 ;— - i I H I a 0.55 • ! - 1 . - - I 1 - I I a 0.54 - - I I I 3 i 0.53 ! l _ I ` [Inundated] I I 1 0.52 I i I I i 0.51 - - - ! I i • 0.50 - I -• I I fi . I ! i + i • I 0.49 I I I ! I ' ! i I I I , 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psi) Consolidation/Swell Test Avery Farms, BH 4 @ 4'-5' 1 I I pill 11 I_ � 0.5 i -- I - - - ' Dry Density = 109 pcf I I Moisture = 16.7% 0 I I ! i ! } 2.5" Shelby Sample ! I f l I I i II ! -0.5 I . . 11 I i ( I i 7.' -1 to ! O I I I - e I IS -2 Inundated I I I 1 i1 II iI I I I O 1 U -2.5 - I . _ f -3 - -3.5 ------- '- G i f I I i I I I I I II i -4.5 i 1 , 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Consolidation/Swell Test Avery Farms, BH 4 @ 41-5' 0.53 — I , , I?.. . i Dry Density = 109 pcf 0.52 F I Moisture = 16.7% I I I I I I 12.5" Shelby Sample I I I I I1 1 � II 1 I ii 0.51 - j 0.50 ! - I + • j p Inundated I ea 0.49 _ I O I ! I II 0.48 ---- I - r - • - - - i 0.47 _.._ i I 1 I I I 1 - I r t I — ,i. I I 0.46 - -, I _ I , 1 , I i i I i . i I i j ! I Ii I . 0.45 - i I I ' i I 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Consolidation/Swell Test Avery Farms, BH 4 @ 5.5'-6' . Dry Density = 111 pcf 0 - - , Moisture = 16.4% I I I California Sample I I I 1 1� II i i i I Inundated c c -2 i I I i ----._._ i _ ! I i as i I Q i I I I I o _�_ 1 j . . • I I i 1 I . J I I I i j I 1 o i i i t r i 4 a I I I I-- I- - _--- ' I { I I I I I I i l i i I J — I - I I ; I 6 I I I I [ , I I _ I 1 ' , 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Consolidation/Swell Test Avery Farms, BH 4 @ 5.5'-6' 0.51 I fj.._; I i 0.50 -- _ • IDry Density = 111 pcf i • I Moisture = 16.4% I California Sample 0.49 i J ! III t ! r I 0.48 — I -I I II 0.47 ----, i I a [Inundated 1 • 0 46 , . I ' ! -o I i I 0.45 -,--- - ! _ I I I 0,44 - -- i 0.43 I - - - Ii 0.42 Ir - ' I 1 I , I I E 0.41 - I I I 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psi) Consolidation/Swell Test Avery Farms, BH 4 @ 7'-9' 3 - 1 I ! Lill I l i Dry Density = 100 pcf Moisture = 10.5% 2 _. - - I I California Sample ! I/ ! • j • ') I _ I ' 4 U I , I1 I ! • Inundated I I I o I ! I I I I i I tr ' " ' o I V -1 1 ! I I • I I ; -2 - - 1 , ; ! 1 I i I I { 1 -3 : I 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Consolidation/Swell Test Avery Farms, BH 4 @ 7'-9' 0.70 — Ii , , , � , Dry Density = 100 pcf i I . _ - — Moisture = 10.5% 0.69 . . - I I California Sample 0.68 I I ! . I , . ; ./ I I ! I H 0.67 - - I I T ' I i I I _1 ' I I I Irii Inundated I ! ! I I O 0.66 - - - - 1 - II 04 :� 0.65 - — ___ __ o I 0.64 _ t 0.63 ! . . I 1 I 1 I I ' I I I i , 0.62 �- - I I c I I �-_ I ! ! II ' 0.61 i l I i ; . I ! ! I , . _L i I 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psi) Consolidation/Swell Test Avery Farms, BH 5 a T-9' 1 — ),._JIII 1 I I 0.5 ! - I - Dry Density = 115 pcf -- I i I • I • Moisture = 9.5% 0 I 2.2 Shelby Sample H I I � I ! I � I , t l I i 3 1 :° -1.5 l • I ' i o i I e [Inundated' . • ` f -2.5 I - -- - i -3.5 - -- I I 1 I I ! I � i ► ' ICI I i I ' � -4 I , ; 1 I I i I -1 I I I : III : 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Consolidation/Swell Test Avery Farms, BH 5 @ 7'-9' 0.45 I I / III Dry Density = 115 pcf 0.44 -- I I Moisture = 9.5% I I I I III I I 2.2„ Shelby Sample I i iI I I I III I I \ yI ' ii , I 0.43 i I I I I I '-' 0.42 I O a I I b 3 0.41 Inundated I I 11 11, I 0.40 I I I I II II I 0.39 ' I• ! 0.38 I I I I I 100 1000 10 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Hello