HomeMy WebLinkAbout20211294.tiffi
a
1
USDA United States
Department of
Agriculture
NRCS
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
i
4
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Weld County,
Colorado,
Southern Part
Gerrard Investments LLC
February 5, 2021
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.
They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information
about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for
many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban
planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.
Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste
disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand,
protect, or enhance the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose
special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil
properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.
The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of
soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for
identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area
planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some
cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http:llwww.nres,usda.govlwpsl
portallnreslmain/soilslhealth/) and certain conservation and engineering
applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center
(https://offices.sc.egov.usda.govllocator/app?agency=nres) or your NRCS State Soil
Scientist (h ttp://www, n res. usda. govlwpsiporta l/n resldetaillsoi lslcontactusl?
cid=nresel42p2_053951).
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are
seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a
foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as
septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to
basements or underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States
Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey.
information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available
through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its
programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability,
and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion,
sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a
part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not
all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require
2
alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,
audiotape, diotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice
and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of
Civil Rights, 1400Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or
call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity
provider and employer.
3
Contents
Preface.•nYeer.vent anent innvvi■.■.•ti..at.■ ■F...•.
./4..ai4.P1.i4ai1.•.4a44PPPa4a4PPP7 14474!44.4/ 11114.7.4.2
Hour Soil Surreys Are Made................*** i......1ia4.a J a 4 1444../fill■Pii
SoilMap i■ •P....P4.4..a.i.P44.11PP4474..P
SoilMap ■ u.iFr///.SOW . wan *tern .Pa. 44 a•*4 a s4• P 1. P'
4•••• 4444444 -
Leri a+acv entraining rrcev.ri r•. Y4nr voY.... •Yi/4a// i•/i/// / /PP Yaif.Piii 4.PMPPt 4ilajpi4P...P4 4.Y--10
Map Unit Legend.
. .. . n a . . . .•/4!
a./.4.a...P....•6iy.4.a..4icps 1, 444• PP4w•..Fs 4s t• *Am --
Map Unit Descriptions. I....l.. i. II is.b..6 4Y if YY iYi.i'IYYYYi.... •..4111.11+ 4//.1.•F44 /.6i..i 1
Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part 4,13
15 —Colby loam, Ito 3 percent slopes13
42 Nunn day loam, I to 3 percent slopes.......Pa..4...B.N..a• 14
78 Weld loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes .t•a.i,kiY4aEa..__ac_.... _ 15
82--Wiley-Colby complex, I to 3 percent slopes...17
References..”....„ .... .... 7.....67......4. .2
n � .. ... u u .... a.. ON i 4. ... F F b. 1 ... . F a ..... .. _;+,
4
How Soil Surveys Are Made
i
I;
.l
J
J
p
J
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous
areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous
areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and
limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length,
and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and
native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil
profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The
profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the
soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is
devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other
biological activity.
Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource
areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that
share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water
resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey
areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.
The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that
is related to the geology, landforms, rms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the
area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind
of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and
miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific
segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they
were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict
with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a
specific location on the landscape.
Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their
characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil
scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only
a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented
by an understanding of the soil -vegetation -landscape relationship, are sufficient to
verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.
Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They
noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock
fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them
to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their
properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).
Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil
characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for
comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic
classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character
of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil
i
5
Custom Soil Resource Report
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the
individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that
they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and
research.
The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the
objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that
have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a
unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable
proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components
of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way
diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such
landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. if intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite
investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.
The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of
mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape,
and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the
soil -landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at
specific locations. Once the soil -landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller
number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.
These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color,
depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for
content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil
typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.
Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of
characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct
measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit
component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other
properties.
White a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally
are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists
interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field -observed
characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the
soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through
observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management.
Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new
interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other
sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of
specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management
are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same
kinds of soil.
Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on sail properties but also on
such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over
long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example,
soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will
have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict
that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.
After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the
survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and
6
Custom Soil Resource Report
i
f
t
Si
alt
i
i
i
i
1
J
identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings,
fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.
i
Soil Map
t
it
i
I
1
1
a
1
t
1
1
S
•
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of
soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols
displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to
produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.
534530
40'° 2347 N 1 _
40° ' 3r
r
•
50,4630
°
N
N34790
50487c
I
5i -71O
Map Scale: 1:3,430 if pririmd on A Ibrt pe (11" x S.5") sheet.
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
50
100
2D0
504950
303
Meters
4FeEt
150 000 600 9DiD
t'1ap Projection: Web Mercator Corner -coordinates: WGSS4 Edge tics. UTVI Zone 13N WGSS4
9
5C€030
Sap
I
IL
1D
'C6 LI rl ty1Road 56
505110
_NIL- --;,.-r- � AEr
-•xf; �P a '
EU519O
T
44j Sar vyt
I s
- - Watt x
1044 56' 12" V4r
505250
.t1M1, r'+
J
505350
h+.
z
0
4
40° 23'47N
40° 23'3rN
Custom Soil Resource Report
Area of Interest (A00
Soils
MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOl0
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
® Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
U
x
0
a
O
A
4k
O
0
a a
S.
4
e
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Ciay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
MisceIraneeus Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sod i c Spot
C
9p
Spoil Area
Stony Spat
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
} Streams and Canals
Transportation
else
Finstel
Rails
Interstate Hig hways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
V Aerial Photography
MAP INFORMATION
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale_
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely an the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA -MRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part
Survey Area Data: Version 19, Jun 5, 2020
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 11, 2018 —Aug
12, 2018
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps_ As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Legend
Map
Unit
Symbol
Map
Unit
Name
Percent of Aal
Acres in
Aal
0.2
I
0.6%
15
Colby
slopes
loam, I
to 3 percent
42
Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent
slopes
8,8
1
16.7%
78
o
Weld
slopes
loam,
0 to 1
percent
3.3
8.3%
74.4%
82
Wiley -Colby
percent
complex, Ito 3
slopes
29.3
39.4
100.8%
Totals
for Area of Interest
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the
soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along
with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the
landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the
characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some
observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.
Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without
including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made
up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor
components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They
generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the
scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas
are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a
given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit
descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor
components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not
mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it
was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and
miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
11
Custom Soil Resource Report
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the
usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate
pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or
landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The
delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however,
onsite ite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous
areas.
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.
Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil
properties and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for
differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major
horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness,
salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the
basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas
shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase
commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha
silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate
pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.
The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar
in all areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or
miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present
or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered
practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The
pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat
similar. Alpha -Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas
that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar
interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion
of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can
be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made
up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, g to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil
material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
12
Custom Soil Resource Report
Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part
15 Colby loam, e1 to 3 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 361q
Elevation: 4,850 to 5,050 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 16 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F
Frost -free period: 135 to 155 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Colby and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
J
Description of Colby
Setting
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Calcareous eclian deposits
Typical profile
HI - 0 to 7 inches: loam
H2 - 7 to 60 inches: silt loam
properties and qualities
Slope: 1 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: We I I drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 2.00 inlhr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content 15 percent
Available water capacity: High (about 10.6 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e
Land capability classification (non irrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Wiley
Percent of map unit: 9 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Keith
Percent of map unit: 6 percent
13
Custom Soil Resource Report
Hydric soil rating: No
42 Nunn clay loam, I to 3 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2tl pl
Elevation: 3,900 to 5,840 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 17 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 54 degrees F
Frost -free period: 135 to 160 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Nunn and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transacts of the mapunit.
Description of Nunn
Setting
Landform: Terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional) : Tread
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Pleistocene aged alluvium and/or eolian n deposits
Typical profile
p - 0 to 9 inches: clay loam
at - 9 to 13 inches: clay loam
51k - 13 to 25 inches: clay loam
Ski - 25 to 38 inches: clay loam
8 - 38 to 80 inches: clay loam
Properties and qualities
slope: to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 inlhr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency ofpondiny: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 7 percent
Maximum salinity: Monsaline to very slightly saline (0.1 to 2.0 mmhosicm)
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 0.5
Available water capacity: High (about 9.9 inches)
interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
14
Custom Soil Resource Report
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R067BY042CO - Clayey Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Heldt
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Landform: Terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: R0678Y042CO - Clayey Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Satanta
Percent of map unit 5 percent
Landform: Terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional) : Tread
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: R067B\00200 - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
78 —Weld loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2x0hy
Elevation: 3,600 to 5,750 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 17 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 54 degrees F
Frost -free period: 115 to 155 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Weld and similar soils: 80 percent
Minor components: 20 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transacts of the mapunit.
Description of Weld
Setting
Landform: l nterfl eves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Calcareous loess
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 8 inches: loam
15
Custom Soil Resource Report
8t1 - 8 to 12 inches: clay
8t2 - 12 to 15 inches: clay loam
Btk - 15 to 28 inches: loam
Bk - 28 to 60 inches: silt loam
C - 60 to 80 inches: silt loam
r
Se-
i
1
J
i
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 1 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 14 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline i ne to very slightly saline (0.1 to 2.0 mmhoslcm )
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 5.0
Available water capacity: High (about 11.3 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2c
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3c
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: RO67BYOO2CO - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Colby
Percent of map unit: 8 percent
Landform: Hilislopes
l islopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Ecological site: Rob7BYOO2CO - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Wiley
Percent of map unit: 7 percent
Landform: I nterfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Ecological site: R067BY002OO - Loamy Rains
Hydric soil rating: No
Keith
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Imerfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional) : Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Into rfl uve
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across slope shape: Linear
16
Custom Soil Resource Report
Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Baca
i
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Interfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfiuve
Down -slope shape: Linear, convex
Across -slope shape: Linear, convex
Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
82 Wiley -Colby complex, 'I to 3 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 3643
Elevation: 4,850 to 5,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 16 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 54 degrees F
Frost -free period: 135 to 170 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Wiley and similar soils: 60 percent
Colby and similar soils: 30 percent
Minor components: 10 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transacts of the mapwnit.
Description of Wiley
Setting
Landform: Plains
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Calcareous eolian deposits
Typical profile
HI - 0 to 11 inches: silt loam
H2 - 11 to 60 inches: silty clay loam
H3 - 60 to 64 inches: silty clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 1 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.60 to 2.00 i niter)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
i
17
rn
4
i
1
Custom Soil Resource Report
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water capacity: High (about 11.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated) : 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: R067 BY002CO - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Colby
Setting
Landform: Plains
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Calcareous eolian deposits
Typical profile
HI - 0 to 7 inches: loam
H2 - 7 to 60 inches: silt loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 1 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 2.00 i rilhr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent
Available water capacity: High (about 10.6 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated) : 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: 8067 B\100200 - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Weld
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Heldt
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Keith
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
18
Custom Soil Resource Report
19
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling
and testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTMM1). 2005. Standard classification of
soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487 -O0.
Cowardin, L.K, V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deep -water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service FWS/OBS-79/31.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register, September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.1 ., and L,M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric
soils in the United States.
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http:llwww.nres.usda.govlwpslportalf
nresldetaillnationallsoilsl?cid=nres142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for
making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://
vwww.nres.usda.govlwpslportaIlnresldetaillnationaIlseiIsl?cid=nres142p2 053577
Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:/I
w rw. nres. usda. govlwpslportal/n resld etaillnationa llsoilsl?cid= nres 142p2_053580
Tiner, R.W., Jr, 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands
Section.
i
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of
Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical
Report Y-87-1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://www.nres.usda.govlwps/portallnresldetaillsoilsl
home/?cid=n res 142 p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://mvw.nrcs.usda.goviwpsiportalinrcsi
detail/nationallJanduselrangepasture/eid=stelprdb1 048084
20
Custom Soil Resource Report
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430 -VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.goviwpsiportall
nresldetailfsoilslscientistsf?cid=nresl 42p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States,
the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook
296. http:ftwww. nr . usda .govfwpslportalln resfdetailln ationallsoi lst?
cid=nres14 p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land
capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE DOCUMENTSfn res 142p2_052290. pdf
21
GEOTECHNICAL H I AL UB URFACE EXPLORATION REPORT
PROPOSED GERRARD CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS FACILITIES
EAST OF WELD COUNTY ROAD (WCR) AND -4.5 MILES SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 4
JOHN TOWN, COLORADO
EEC PROJECT NO.1162008
Prepared for:
Gerrard Companies
27486 Lorimer County Road 13
Johnstown, Colorado 80534
Attention: Mr. Tom Donkle (tdoxUcie�1gerraxdinc4 corn)
Prepared by:
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
4396 Greenfield Drive
Windsor, Colorado 80550
?II
March 11, 2016
Gerrard Companies
27486 Larimer County Road 13
Johnstown, Colorado 80534
Attn: Mr. Torn Donkle (tdonkJe(gerrardinc.com)
Re: Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report
Proposed Gerrard Corporate Headquarters Facilities
Johnstown, Colorado
EEC Project No. 1162008
Mr. Donkle:
EARTH ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS, LIC
Enclosed, herewith, are results of the geotechnical subsurface exploration completed for the
proposed Gerrard Corporate Headquarters facilities located east of Weld County Road (WCR) 13
(aka Lorimer County Road 1 / South County Line Road) and approximately 1.5 miles south of
Highway 34 in Johnstown, Colorado. Results of the exploration completed and geotechnical
recommendations concerning design and construction of the proposed buildings, and adjacent
pavements are provided within this report. In addition, preliminary percolation rates of site soils
for assistance with the individual sewage disposal (LS.D.Sj/leach field and detention pond
design are provided herein. This subsurface exploration was performed in general accordance
with our proposal dated January 26, 20164
In summary, the subsurface conditions observed in the test borings completed on the site
consisted of overburden materials consisting of lean clay with varying amounts of sand. The
overburden soils were underlain at depths of approximately 9 to 11 feet below existing site
grades by siltstoneisandstoneiclaystone bedrock. The subsurface soils generally exhibited low to
moderate plasticity and nil to low swell potential characteristics. The overburden soils generally
exhibited medium stiff to soft conditions and were generally moist to saturated with increased
depth. Based on observations made while drilling, depth to groundwater appears to be on the
order of 4 to 11 feet below existing site grades.
With the relatively shallow soft and compressible zones observed in the subgrade soils, we
recommend ground modification of the native soils and/or placement of structural fill material be
used to develop an appropriate bearing stratum for conventional type spread footings for the new
buildings to reduce the potential movement. If movement as presented in the text portion of this
4396 GREENFIELD ELD DRIVE
WINDSOR, COLORADO 80550
(910) 545-3908 FAX (970) 663-0282
t
i
1
1
_J
J
EEC Project No. 1162008
March 11, 2016
Page 2
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
report cannot be tolerated, a deep foundation system consisting of a straight shaft drilled
pier/caisson system should be considered for support of the proposed new buildings.
eotechnical recommendations concerning design and construction of the foundations, support
of floor slabs and pavements are provided in the text of the attached report.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project If you have any questions
concerning this report, or if we can be of further service to you in any other way, please do not
hesitate to contact us,
Very truly yours,
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC Reviewed by:
Jacob 3. Silverman, E I.T,
Project Engineer
JJ fD RJd1a
David A. Richer, P.E.
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
J
GEOTECHNICAL TI AL UB U FA E EXPLORATION REPORT
PROPOSED GERRARD CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS R FACILITIES
EAST OF WELD COUNTY ROAD ' R) AND r4.5 MILES OT. TH OF HIGHWAY 34
JOHN TOWN, COLORADO
EEC PROJECT NO. 1162008
March 11, 2016
INTRODUCTION
The geotechnical subsurface exploration for the proposed Gerrard Corporate Headquarters facilities
located east of Weld County Road (WCR) 13 (aka Larimer County Road 1 / South County Line
Road), and approximately 1.5 miles south of Highway 34 in Johnstown, Colorado has been
completed. Eight (8) building related borings (borings B-1 through B-8), and three (3) water quality
and/or pavement related borings (borings B-9 through E-11) were completed on the site to develop
information on existing subsurface conditions. Additionally, one (1) soil profile borings (boring SP)
and six (6) shallow soil borings (borings P-1 through P-6) were advanced within the proposed
individual sewage disposal system I. .i .S. /leach field, and utilized for percolation testing
purposes. Individual boring logs and a diagram indicating the approximate borings, buildings,
parking, and septic system locations are includedwith this report. This exploration was completed
in general accordance with our Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration proposal for the site dated
January 26, 2016.
We understand the Gerrard Corporate Headquarters facility will include construction of
approximate 13,900, 4,400, and 6,000 square feet (sf) in plan line dimension buildings, an
approximate 7,000 sf new office building which will be serviced by an on -site I, .I1. i/septic
system, on -site pavement improvements, gravel surfaced yard areas and a water quality/detention
pond. We expect foundation loads for the new structures will be relatively light. Continuous wall
loads are expected to be less than 4 kips per lineal foot with maximum individual column loads on
the order of 25 to 100 kips. Floor loads for the slab -on -grade floors are expected to be light to
moderate. We expect pavement areas will be used predominately by automobiles and light trucks
although portions of the pavements may be subject to heavily loaded truck traffic. We understand
small grade changes on the order 1 to 5 feet will be required to develop the site grades for this
development.
The purpose of this report is to describe the subsurface conditions encountered in the test borings on
the site, analyze and evaluate the test data and provide geotechnical recommendations concerning
design and construction of foundations, support of floor slabs and pavements, and septic system
requirements.
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
I.
r
•
•
EEC Project. No. 1162008
March 11, 2016
Page 2
EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES
The approximate boring locations were established in the field by Earth Engineering Consultants,
LLC (EEC) personnel by pacing and estimating angles from identifiable site features. The
approximate boring locations are indicated on the attached boring location diagram. The locations
of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the methods used to make
the field measurements. Photographs of the site taken at the time of our site field exploration are
provided with this report.
The borings were performed using a truck -mounted CME-55 drill rig equipped with a hydraulic
head employed in drilling and sampling operations. The boreholes were advanced using 4 -inch
nominal diameter continuous flight augers. Samples of the subsurface materials encountered were
obtained using split barrel and California barrel sampling procedures in general accordance with
ASTASTM Specifications D1586 and D3550, respectively.
In the split barrel and California barrel sampling procedures, standard sampling spoons are driven
into the ground with a 140 -pound hammer falling a distance of 30 inches, The number of blows
required to advance the split barrel and California barrel samplers is recorded and is used to estimate
the in -situ relative density of cohesionless soils and, to a lesser degree of accuracy, the consistency
of cohesive soils and hardness of weathered bedrock. All samples obtained in the field were sealed
and returned to our laboratory for further examination, classification, and testing.
The septic system evaluation of the site consisted of six (6) shallow soil percolation borings drilled
to approximate depths of 3 to 4 feet below site grades, and one (1) soil profile boring drilled to an
approximate depth of 10 feet below site grades at the locations shown on the enclosed Boring
Location Diagram. The septic system field exploration was conducted in general accordance with
the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment's (WCDPHE) design guidelines.
Soil percolation tests were conducted in accordance with Weld County requirements. Assistance
with the I. .D, . design will be provided by Earth Engineering Company (EECompany) personnel,
i
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
1
IT
4
I
p
EEC Project No. 1162008
March 11, 2016
Page 3
Laboratory moisture content tests were completed on each of the recovered samples. The
unconfined strength of appropriate samples was estimated using a calibrated hand penetrometer.
The quantity and plasticity of the fines in the subgrade were determined by washed sieve analysis
and Atterberg limits tests on selected samples.Swell/consolidation tests were completed on selected
samples to evaluate the soil's tendency to change volume with variation in moisture content.
Selected samples of near surface soils and underlying bedrock were also tested to determine
quantities of water soluble sulfates to evaluate the potential for sulfate attack on site concrete.
Results of the outlined tests are indicated in the following sections, and on the attached boring logs
and summary sheets.
As a part of the testing program, all samples were examined in the laboratory and classified in
general accordance with the attached General Notes and the Unified Soil Classification System,
based on the soil's texture and plasticity. The estimated group symbol for the Unified Soil
Classification System is indicated on the boring logs and a brief description of that classification
system is included with this report. Classification of the bedrock was based on visual and tactual
observation of auger cuttings and disturbed samples. Coring and/or petrographic analysis may
reveal other rock types.
SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The Gerrard Corporate Headquarters facilities will be located east of WR 13/LL R 1/South County
Line Road, approximately 1 A miles south of Highway 34, and north of WCR 56 in Johnstown,
Colorado. The project site is currently open field with topsoil and vegetation ground cover. The site
is relatively level with an existing residence northwest of the proposed facility improvement areas
and existing oil and gas industry improvements southeast of the proposed facility improvements. No
other evidence of prior building construction was observed.
Based on results of the field borings and laboratory testing, subsurface conditions can be generalized
as follows. Topsoil and vegetation was encountered at the surface of all boring locations. The
topsoil/vegetation was generally underlain by lean clay with varying amounts of sand. The lean clay
with varying amounts of sand extended to depths of approximately 9 to 11 feet below existing site
grades. The lean clay materials were generally underlain by siltstonefsandstoneiclastone bedrock
while in boring B-11 the lean clay extended to the depths explored, approximately 10 feet below
r
cl
!I
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1162008
March 11, 2016
Page 4
existing site grades. The siltstone/sandstone/claystone bedrock extended to the depths explored in
the remaining borings, approximately 10 to 30 feet below existing site grades.
M
I
The lean clay subgrade soils generally demonstrated low to moderate plasticity, nil to low potential
to swell and was generally medium stiff to soft approaching and in groundwater. The bedrock
observed generally demonstrated low to moderate plasticity and generally low potential to swell and
was generally weathered and softer near the soil -bedrock interface becoming moderately hard to
hard with depth.
The stratification boundaries indicated on the boring logs represent the approximate locations of
changes in soil and rock types; in -situ, the transition of materials may be gradual and indistinct.
GROUNDWATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
RVATION
Observations were made while drilling and after completion of the borings to detect the presence and
depth to hydrostatic groundwater. Free water was observed in mostborings at depths of
approximately 4 to 11 feet at the time ofdrilling. Groundwater was not encountered in borings B-9,
13-11 and the soil profile boring SP to the depths explored, approximately 10 to 15 feet below
existing site grades. The boreholes were backfilled after completion of drilling, except for boring B-
4, and longer term water level observations were not completed. The 24 hour measurement of
groundwater in boring B-4 was approximately 5 feet below existing site grade. The water level
measurements completed at the time of our exploration are indicated in the upper right hand corner
of the attached boring logs.
Fluctuations in groundwater levels can occur over time depending on variations in hydrologic
conditions and other conditions not apparent at the time of this report. Perched water can also be
observed in the more granular zones interbedded with low permeability clays and above the lower
permeability bedrock, Longer term monitoring of groundwater levels in cased boreholes sealed from
the infiltration of surface water would be required to more accurately evaluate the depth and
fluctuations in groundwater levels over time,
1
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1162008
March 11, 2016
Page 5
ANALYSIS ND RECOMMENDATIONS
•
Wle
s
J
Si
a
Swell c Consolidation Test Results
The swell -consolidation test is performed to evaluate the swell or collapse potential of soils to help
determine foundation and floor slab design criteria. In this tests samples obtained directly from the
California sampler are placed in a laboratory apparatus and inundated with water under a
predetermined load. The swell -index is the resulting amount of swell or collapse under the initial load
expressed as a percent of the sample's initial thickness. After the initial loading period, additional
incremental loads are applied to evaluate the swell pressure and/or consolidation response.
For this analysis, we conducted eleven (11) swell -consolidation tests. The (+) test result indicates
the material's swell potential while the (-) test result indicates the materials collapse and/or
consolidation prone potential when inundated with water. The following table summarizes the
swell -consolidation laboratory test results.
Table I — Swell Consolidation Test Results
Boring
loo.
Depth,
fit.
Material Type
i
Swell Consolidation Test Results
In -Situ
Moisture
►1l
Content,
Dry
Density,
(Pcf)
Inundation
Pressure,
(psf)
Swell Index, %
010
1
4
Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
26.0
100.9
500
(-) 2.5
1
14
17.7
110.8
500
(+9 1.6
Claystone i Siltstone / Sandstone
3
4
Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
24.3
101.1
500
(-) 1.2
3
14
Claystone ./ Siltstone / sandstone
16.0
117.3
500
(+) 2.5
4
2
Lean Clay (CL)
28.1
97.1
500
(-) 1,1
5
14
Claystone / Siltstone / Sandstone
17.1
112.3
1000
(-f-) 0.5
6
4
Lean Clay (CL)
12.6
107.3
500
(+) 1.7
7
2
Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
23.6
100.1
500
(-) 0.7
8
14
Claystone / Siltstone i Sandstone
15.6
116.6
500
(+) 2.1
10
2
Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
25.0
99.1
150
(-) 0.4
11
2
Lean Clay (CLr)
24,6
101.5
150
(-0 0,5
i
EEC Project No. 1162008
March 11, 2016
Page 6
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
Colorado Association of Geotechnical Engineers (CAGE) uses the following table information to
provide uniformity in terminology between geotechnical engineers to provide a relative correlation of
slab performance risk to measured swell. "The representative percent swell values are not necessarily
measured values; rather, they are a judgment of the swell of the soil and/or bedrock profile likely to
influence slab performance." Geotechnical engineers use this information to also evaluate the swell
potential risks for foundation performance based on the risk categories.
Table H - Recommended Representative
Swell Potential Descriptions and Corresponding
Slab Performance
Risk Categories
labs Performance Risk
Representative Percent Swell
(500 psfSurcharge)1
R�epres
n
+
tati
psf
Per
u
r
hang
nt
ll
Low
0to<3
< 3
0
< 2
Moderate
3to<5
2to<4
High
5to'c8
4toc
Very High
I > 8
>6
Based on the laboratory test results, the in -situ samples analyzed for this project were generally with
the nil to low range for overburden soils and within the low range in bedrock,
Site Preparation
All existing vegetation and topsoil should be removed from any fill, building and/or pavement area.
After stripping and completing all cuts and prior to placement of any fill or site improvements, the
exposed subgrades should be scarified to a depth of 9 inches, where practical, adjusted in moisture
content and compacted to at least 95% of the materials maximum dry density as determined in
accordance with ASTASTM Specification D698, the standard Proctor procedure. The moisture content
of the scarified materials should be adjusted to be within the range of ±2% of standard optimum
moisture content at the time ofcompaction. Areas of soft/compressible cohesive subsoils across the
site may require ground stabilization procedures to create a working platform for construction
equipment prior to placement of any additional fill. If necessary, consideration could be given to
placement of a granular material, such as a 3 -inch minus pit run and/or recycled concrete or
equivalent material, embedded into the soft soils, prior to placement of additional fill material or
operating heavy earth -moving equipment. Supplemental recommendations can be provided upon
request.
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No, 1162008
March 11, 2016
Page 7
Prior to placement of fill materials and/or- overlying improvements, consideration could also be
given to a subgrade stabilization approach within the improvement areas utilizing an overexcavation
and replacement concept by incorporating either reinforced geo-grid and/or a geosynthetic product
as follows.
Use of a Tensar B 1100 or BX1200 Geogrid reinforcement product or equivalent installed over the
subgrade soils, then placement of an approximate 18 to 24 inch layer of an interlocking coarse
granular, fractured face 3 to 1-1/2 inch minus aggregate material, such as recycled concrete or
equivalent be placed over the top of the geogrid and incorporated into the unstable subgrade soils
could be considered as a subgrade stabilization method. Placement and installation of the geogrid
product should be completed in general accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.
In the roadway and possibly even within the interior floor slab areas, consideration could also be
given to the use of a geosynthetic to reduce the overexcavation depth. If a geosynthetic product is
used, (such as a Mire. HPS70, Mirafi RS3 80i or RS580i 8 Qi of equivalent), we recommend over -
excavating a minimum of 2 feet of the subgrade soil from beneath the roadways and interior floor
slab areas. Once the overexcavation is complete, the exposed subgrades should be proof rolled to
identify significantly soft and unstable soils. Proof rolling would commonly be accomplished by
observation of the subgrades immediately behind a tire supporting the axle of a loaded water truck.
Significant instability may require additional overexcavation depths. To redevelop the pavement
subgrade and/or possibly the interior floor slab subgrade elevations, prior to placement of backfill
materials, we recommend installing the approved/selected geosynthetic product above the exposed
subgrades. The geosynthetic should be installed according to the manufacture's recommendations.
Once installed the backfill materials could be placed to redevelop the pavement and floor slab
subgrade elevations.
Fill materials placed to develop the subgrades should consist of approved structural fill material
which is free from organic matter and debris. Structural fill should be graded similarly to a CDOT
Class 5, 6 or 7 aggregate base with sufficient fines to prevent ponding of water within the fill.
Recycled concrete graded to the outlined CDOT Specifications would be acceptable fill material,
Structural fill material should be placed in loose lifts not to exceed 9 inches thick, adjusted to a
workable moisture content and compacted to at least 95% of standard Proctor maximum dry density
as determined by ASTM Specification D698.
r
J
1
1
1
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1162008
March 11, 2016
Page 8
After the backfill materials are placed to grade, we recommend a supplemental proof roll be
conducted to verify stability of the subgrades prior to placement of floor slabs, the recommended
pavement sections and/or gravel surfacing materials. Unstable subgrades may require further
reworking in place or additional stabilization. The ground modification procedures recommended
herein for the referenced site will help reduce the amount of anticipated movement of the floor slabs
and pavements/parking, but some movement should be expected.
After preparation of the subgrades, care should be taken to avoid disturbing the prepared materials.
In -place soils which are loosened or disturbed by construction activity should be removed and
replaced or reworked in -place prior to placement of the overlying improvements.
Foundation System General Considerations
The site appears suitable for the proposed construction based on the results of our field exploration and
our understanding of the proposed development plans. The following foundation systems were
evaluated for use on the site for the proposed building.
• Conventional type spread footings bearing on ground modified and/or placed and compacted
structural fill material.
• Due to the necessity to ground modifyioverexcavate and replace the existing on -site subsoils to
accommodate an approved beating stratum, and assume a possible greater risk for the potential
of movement in the subsoils, consideration should be given to supporting the proposed
buildings on a grade beam and straight shaft drilled pier/caisson foundation system extending
into the underlying bedrock formation. Consideration should also be given to the use of a
structural floor slab in conjunction with a drilled pier/caisson foundation system; however, an
overexcavation and replacement with an imported structural fill material and/or on -site
engineered fill material to allow for a slab -on -grade could also be considered.
Alternative foundation systems could be considered, such as but not limited to post -tensioned slabs,
geo-piers, or helical piers, and we would be pleased to provide additional alternatives upon request.
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1162008
March 11, 2016
Page 9
Conventional Tvue Spread F'ootinus
Based on results of field borings and laboratory testing as outlined in this report, it is our opinion the
proposed lightly loaded buildingscould be supported on conventional type spread footing
foundations bearing on ground modified and/or on a zone of approved structural fill material as
discussed in the "Site Preparation" section of this report. For design of footing foundations bearing
in the ground modified and/or approved structural fill material, we recommend using a net allowable
total load soil bearing pressure not to exceed 2,000 psf. The net bearing pressure refers to the
pressure at foundation bearing level in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden pressure. A
minimum dead load pressurewould not be required in the low swell potential subsoils as described
herein.
Exterior foundations and foundations in unheated areas should be located a minimum of 30 inches
below adjacent exterior grade to provide frost protection. We recommend formed continuous
footings have a minimum width of 16 inches and isolated column foundations have a minimum
width of 24 inches.
We anticipate settlement of the footing foundations designed and constructed as outlined above
would be up to 1 -inch. If this amount of movement is not acceptable, drilled piers/caisson
foundations should be considered,
Drilled Piers/Caissons Foundations
Based on the subgrade conditions observed in the test borings and on the anticipated foundation loads,
we recommend supporting the proposed building on a grade beam and straight shaft drilled
pier/caisson foundation system extending into the underlying bedrock formation. Particular attention
will be required in the construction of drilled piers due to the presence of soft/wet clays and relatively
shallow groundwater.
For axial compression loads, the drilled piers could be designed using a maximum end bearing pressure
of 30,000 pounds per square foot (psi), along with a skin -friction of3,000 psf for the portion of the pier
extended into the underlying firm and/or harder bedrock formation. Straight shaft piers should be
drilled a minimum of 10 -feet into competent or harder bedrock, with minimum shaft lengths of2S feet
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1162008
March 11, 2016
Page 10
are recommended, Lower values may be appropriate for pier "groupings" depending on the pier
diameters and spacing. Pile groups should be evaluated individually.
To satisfy forces in the horizontal direction, piers may be designed for lateral loads using a modulus of
50 tons per cubic foot to for the portion of the pier in native cohesive soils, 75 tcf for engineered fill,
and 400 tef in bedrock for a pier diameter of 12 inches. The coefficient of subgrade reaction for
varying pier diameters is provided in the table below:
TABLE III - Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction for Varying Pier Diameters
Pier Diameter (inches)Engineered
Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction (tonsifi )
Cohesive Soils
Fill or
Granular Soils
Bedrock
18
33
50
267
24
25
38
200
30
20 I
30
160
36
17
25
133
When the lateral capacity of drilled piers is evaluated by the L -Pile (O 624) computer program, we
recommend that internally generated load -deformation (PY) curves be used. The parameters in table
below may be used for the design of laterally loaded piers, using the L -Pile (O 624) computer
program:
TABLE IV — L -Pile Design
Parameters
Parameters
Structural Fill
On -Site Overburden
Cohesive Soils
Bedrock
Unit Weight of Soil (pcf)
125(1)
1000
125(1)
Cohesion s
0
70
5000
Angle of Internal Friction 0 (degrees)
20
20
35
Strain Corresponding to 'A. Max.
Principal Stress Difference 050
0.02
0.015
--a.
*Notes: 1) Reduce by 64 PCF below the water table
Drilling caissons to design depth should be possible with conventional heavy-duty single flight power
augers equipped with rock teeth on the majority of the site. Due to the presence ofinedium stiff to soft
Earth Engineering Consultants, LIE
EEC Project No. 1162008
Marah 11, 2016
Page 11
•1
it
I'
I
p
cohesive soil and relatively shallow groundwater at approximate depths of 4 to 11 feet below site
grades, maintaining open shafts for the caissons may be difficult without stabilizing measures. We
expect temporary casing will be required to adequately/properly drill and clean piers prior to concrete
placement. Groundwater should be removed from each pier hole prior to concrete placement. Pier
concrete should be placed immediately after completion of drilling and cleaning.
. , maxiniu n. 3 -inch depth of groundwater is acceptable in each pier prior to concrete placement. If pier
concrete cannot be placed in dry conditions, a tremie should be used for concrete placement, Due to
potential sloughing and raveling, foundation concrete quantities may exceed calculated geometric
volumes. Pier concrete with slump in the range of 6 to 8 inches is recommended. Casing used for pier
construction should be withdrawn in a slow continuous manner maintaining a sufficient head of
concrete to prevent infiltration of soil/water or the creation of voids in pier concrete.
Foundation excavations should be observed by the geotechnical engineer. A representative of the
geotechnical engineer should inspect the bearing surface and pier configuration. If the soil conditions
encountered differ from those presented in this report, supplemental recommendations may be
required.
We estimate the long-term settlement of drilled pier foundations designed and constructed as
outlined above would be less than 1 -inch.
Lateral Earth Pressures
Any portion of the building constructed "below grade" will be subject to lateral earth pressures.
Passive lateral earth pressures may help resist the driving forces for retaining wall or other similar
site structures.
Active lateral earth pressures could be used for design of structures where some movement of the
structure is anticipated, such as retaining walls. The total deflection of structures for design with
active earth pressure is estimated to be on the order of one half of one percent of the height of the
down slope side of the structure. We recommend at -rest pressures be used for design of structures
where rotation of the walls is restrained, including the basement walls. Passive pressures and
friction between the footing and bearing soils could be used for design of resistance to movement of
retaining walls.
S.
1
I4
EEC Project No. 1162008
March 11, 2016
Page 12
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
Coefficient values for backfill with anticipated types of soils for calculation of active, at rest and
passive earth pressures are provided in the table below. Equivalent fluid pressure is equal to the
coefficient times the appropriate soil unit weight. Those coefficient values are based on horizontal
backfill with backfill soils consisting of essentially granular materials with a friction angle of a 35
degrees or low volume change cohesive soils. For the at -rest and active earth pressures, slopes down
and away from the structure would result in reduced driving forces with slopes up and away from the
structures resulting in greater forces on the walls. The passive resistance would be reduced with
slopes away from the wall. The top 30 -inches of soil on the passive resistance side ofwalls could be
used as a surcharge load; however, it should not be used as a part of the passive resistance value.
Frictional resistance is equal to the tangent of the friction angle times the normal force.
TABLE V — Lateral Earth Pressures
ail T a
yp
--
Lai P ` `
lasticity
Cohesive Soil
Medium Dense Granular
I
Imported
Material
Wet Unit Weight
—
11.E
135
Saturated
Unit Weight
135
145
Friction
Angle (q5) - (assumed)
2
35
Active Pressure Coefficient (Ka
0.49
-- i
0,27
At
-rest Pressure Coefficient
Q
0.66
0,43
Passive Pressure Coefficient (ICr)
2.04
3.70
Surcharge loads or point loads placed in the backfill can also create additional loads on below grade
walls. Those situations should be designed on an individual basis.
The outlined values do not include factors of safety nor allowances for hydrostatic loads and are
based on assumed friction angles, which should be verified after potential material sources have
been identified.
Care should be taken to develop appropriate drainage systems behind below grade walls to eliminate
potential for hydrostatic loads developing on the walls. Those systems would likely include
perimeter drain systems extending to sump areas or free outfall where reverse flow cannot occur into
the system. Where necessary, appropriate hydrostatic load values should be used for design.
I,
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1162008
March 11, 2016
Page 13
Floor Slab, Pavement and Gravel Surfaced Yard Area Sub rakes
Subgrades for floor slabs, site pavements/parking and gravel surfaced yard areas should be prepared
as outlined in the section. titled "Site Preparation."
Floor slabs supported on stabilized subgrades following the protocol outlined in "Site Preparation"
could be designed using a modulus of subgrade support (k -value) of 150 pci.
Additional floor slab design and construction recommendations are as follows:
• Positive separations and/or isolation joints should be provided between slabs and all
foundations, columns or utility lines to allow independent movement*
• Control joints should be provided in slabs to control the location and extent of cracking.
• Interior trench backfill placed beneath slabs should be compacted in a similar .tanner as
previously described for imported structural fill material,
* Floor slabs should not be constructed on frozen subgrade.
+� Other design and construction considerations, as outlined in the ACI Design Manual, Section
302.1R are recommended.
Pavements
Subgrades for site p avemen t /parking should be prepared as outlined in the section titled "Site
Preparation."
We expect the site pavements will include areas designated primarily for automobile and light truck
traffic use and areas for heavy-duty truck traffic. For design purposes, an assumed equivalent daily
load axle (EDLA) rating of 7 is used in the automobile and light truck areas and an EDLA rating of
15 in the heavy-duty areas. An estimated Hveem stabilometer R -value of 7 was used in design.
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1162008
March 11, 2016
Page 14
Hot mix asphalt (HMA) underlain by aggregate base course or a non -reinforced concrete pavement
may be feasible options for the proposed on -site paved sections. HMA pavements may show rutting
and distress in areas of heavy truck traffic or in truck loading and turning areas. Concrete pavements
should be considered in those areas. Suggested pavement sections are provided in the table below.
The outlined pavement sections are minimums and thus, periodic maintenance should be expected.
TABLE VI - RECOMMENDED MINIMUM PAVEMENT SECTIONS
Light
Duty Areas
Heavy Duty Areas
15
109,500
75%
3230 psi
2.0
18 -kip EDLA
18 -kip ESAD
Reliability
Resilient Modulus (R -Value = 7)
PSI Loss
7
51,500
70%
3230 psi
2.5
Design Structure Number
2.49
2.93
4"
@
7 %
0.44
OA
4-
l =
1.76
0_77
Composite:
Hot Mix Asphalt
Aggregate Base
Structure Number
Course
5" @ 0444 = 2.20
7" 0.11 = 0.77
(2.53).
(2.97)
PCC (Non -reinforced) — placed on a stable subgrade
5""
6"
We recommend aggregate base be graded to meet a Class 5 or Class 6 aggregate base. Aggregate base
should be adjusted in moisture content and compacted to achieve a minimum of 95% of standard
Proctor maximum dry density.
HMA should be graded to meet a SX (75) or S (75) with PG 58-28 binder. HMA should be compacted
to achieve 92 to 96% of the mix's theoretical maximum specific gravity (Rice Value).
Portland cement concrete should be an acceptable exterior pavement mix with a minimum 28 -day
compressive strength of 4,000 psi and should be air entrained.
The recommended pavement sections are minimums, thus, periodic maintenance should be expected.
Longitudinal and transverse joints should be provided as needed in concrete pavements for
expansion/contraction and isolation. The location and extent of joints should be based upon the final
pavement geometry. Sawed j pints should be cut in accordance with ACT recommendations. All, joints
should be sealed to prevent entry of foreign material and dowelled where necessary for load transfer.
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1162008
March 11 , 2016
Page 15
The collection and diversion of surface drainage away from paved areas is critical to the satisfactory
performance of the pavement. Drainage design should provide for the removal of water from paved
areas in order to reduce the potential for wetting of the subgrade soils.
1
OP
W.
_l
Long-term pavement performance will be dependent upon several factors, including maintaining
subgrade moisture levels and providing for preventive maintenance. The following
recommendations should be considered the minimum:
The subgrade and the pavement surface should be adequately sloped to promote proper surface
drainage.
Install pavement drainage surrounding areas anticipated for frequent wetting (e.g. garden
centers, wash racks)
• Install joint sealant and seal cracks immediately.
Seal all landscaped areas in, or adjacent to pavements to minimize or prevent moisture
migration to subgrade soils.
• Place compacted, low permeability backfill against the exterior side of curb and gutter.
Preventive maintenance should be planned and provided for through an on -going pavement
management program. Preventive maintenance activities are intended to slow the rate of pavement
deterioration, and to preserve the pavement investment. Preventive maintenance consists of both
localized maintenance (e.g. crack and joint sealing and patching) and global maintenance (e.g. surface
sealing). Preventive maintenance is usually the first priority when implementing a planned pavement
maintenance program and provides the highest return on investment for pavements. Prior to
implementing any maintenance, additional engineering observation is recommended to determine the
type and extent of preventive maintenance.
Site grading is generally accomplished early in the construction phase. However as construction
proceeds, the subgrade may be disturbed due to utility excavations, construction traffic, desiccation, or
rainfall. As a result, the pavement subgrade may not be suitable for pavement construction and
corrective action will be required. The subgrade should be carefully evaluated at the time ofpavement
construction for signs of disturbance, rutting, or excessive drying. If disturbance has occurred,
Earth Engineering Consultants} LIE
EEC Project No. 1162008
March 11, 2016
Page 16
pavement subgrade areas should be reworked, moisture conditioned, and properly compacted to the
recommendations in this report immediately prior to paving.
If during or after placement of the initial lift of pavement, the area is observed to be yielding under
vehicle traffic or construction equipment, it is recommended that EEC be contacted for additional
alternative methods of stabilization, or a change in the pavement section.
Gravel Surfaced Yard Area
Subgrades for ,gravel surfaced yard area should be prepared as outlined in the section. titled "Site
Preparation." Following subgrade stabilization, we recommend a minimum of 6 -inches of roadway
gravel/ABC material be placed.
The collection and diversion of surface drainage away from roadways and parking areas is critical to
satisfactory performance. Drainage design should provide for the removal of water from yard areas
in order to reduce the potential for wetting of the subgrade soils. In addition, the subgrade and
roadway gravel should be adequately sloped to promote proper drainage. Occasional surficial
maintenance/grading should be expected.
Septic System overview
We understand a septic system and detention pond area are proposed near the south end of the
proposed project site. Subsurface conditions within this area generally consisted of approximately 9
feet of lean clay with varying amounts of sand with underlying cla stone/siltstone/sandstone bedrock
to the depths explored, approximately 10 to 15 feet. Groundwater was not encountered to maximum
depths of exploration in the soil percolation borings.
For this project, we conducted six (6) soil percolation tests within the near surface up to 4 feet below
site grades to develop percolation rates. Soil percolation testing within the proposed location of the
septic drain field area, conducted for a period of approximately 90 minutes after an initial "24 -hour
soaking period", resulted in percolations rates from ground surface to 4 feet below existing site
grades on the order of 30 l minutes/inch and is summarized in the table below.
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1162008
March 11, 2016
Page 17
Percolation Test Results
Boring
Boring Depth (in)
Groundwater Depth (ft)
Bedrock Depth (ft)
Percolation Rate
(minutesfinch)
P-1
*WE
40
*NE
3.5
P-2
43
*WE
*Nit
38
'-3
*NM
*ME
'7
43
P-4
38
*NIT
*I fE
35
P-5
40
*I+i,
*NIE
31
P-6
40
*WE
*ME
32
PROFILE: SP
114
*NiE
—9.5
Design percolation
30
rate (average) =
*WE: Denotes not encountered to maximum depths of exploration
Assistance with the proposed S.D.S. I septic system design, as previously discussed, will be provided
by EECompany personnel.
$eismic
The site borings indicate approximately 9 to 11 feet of overburden soils consisting of lean clay with
varying amounts of sand with standard penetration blow counts generally less than 10 overlying
moderately hard bedrock. For the given site conditions, the 2012 International Building Code
suggests use of Seismic Site Classification of D for the site.
Water Soluble Sulfates — (SO4
The water soluble sulfate (SO4) testing of the on -site overburden and bedrock materials taken during
our subsurface exploration at varying depths are provided in table below. Based on the reported
sulfate content test results, this report includes a recommendation for the CLASS or TYPE of cement
for use for contact in association with the on -site subsoils and bedrock
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
1
i
i
1
a4
i
EEC Project No. 1162008
March 11, 2016
Page 18
Sample Location
B -1, s-4 at 19'
13-2, S-1 at 2'
TABLE VII - Water Soluble Sulfate Test Results
Description
[Soluble Sulfate Content
Ong/kg)
Soluble Sulfate
Content CA)
Claystone l Siltstone / Sandstone
700 0.07
Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
2,400 0.24
8-4, S-2 at r4'
LB -6, s-3 at 143
Lean Clay (CL)
Claystone / Siltstone / Sandstone
1,700
0.17
700 0.07
Based on the results as presented in table above, AC! 318, Section 4.2 indicates the site overburden
soils have a high risk and bedrock have a low risk of sulfate attack on Portland cement concrete.
Therefore Class 2 and/or Type HI cement should be used for concrete on and below site grade
within the overburden soils and bedrock. 'Foundation concrete should be designed in accordance
with the provisions of the ACI Design Manual, Section 318, Chapter 4. These results are being
compared to the following table.
Table VIII - Requirements to Protect Against Damage to Concrete by Sulfate Attack from External Sources of
Sulfate
severity of Sulfate Water-soluble sulfate (SO4)
exposure in dry soil, percent maximum
Class 0 0,00 to 0.10% 0.45
Class 1 0.11 to 0.20% 0.45
Class 2
Water -cement rati
a
Cernentitious material
Re a utrements
Class 0
Class 1
Class 3
0.21 to 2.00%
2.01 of greater
0.45
Class 2
GENERAL COMMENTS
0.45
Class 3
The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from
the soil borings performed at the indicated locations and from any other information discussed in this
report. This report does not reflect any variations, which may occur between borings or across the
site. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until construction. If
variations appear evident, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report.
It is recommended that the geotechnical engineer be retained to review the plans and specifications
so comments can be made regarding the interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical
recommendations in the design and specifications. It is further recommended that the geotechnical
Earth Engineering Consultants, LTC
EEC Project No, 1162008
March 11, 2016
Page 19
engineer be retained for testing and observations during earthwork and foundation construction
phases to help determine that the design requirements are fulfilled.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Gerrard Companies for specific application to
the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical
engineering practices. No warranty, express or implied, is made. In the event that any changes in
the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions
and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are
reviewed and the conclusions of this report are modified or verified in writing by the geotechnical
engineer.
J
.1
J
Pa
DRILLING AND EXPLORATION
•
I.
J
p
t
DRILLING & SAMPLING NG SYMBOLS.
SS: Split Spoon - 13/8" la, 2" G.D., unless otherwise noted
ST: Thin -Walled Tube - 2" O D., unless otherwise noted
R; Ring Barrel Sampler - 2.42" I.D., 3" 0.D. unless otherwise noted
PA: Power Auger
HA: Hand Auger
DB: Diamond Bit = 4", N, B
AS; Auger Sample
HS: Hollow Stem Auger
PS: Piston Sample
WS: Wash Sample
FT: Fish Tail Bit
RB: Rock Bit
BS; Bulk Sample
PM: Pressure Meter
WB: Wash Bore
Standard "N" Penetration: Blows per foot of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2 -inch G.D. split spoon, except where noted.
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS:
WL ; Water Level
WCI: Wet Cave in
DCI: Dry Cave in
AB ; After Boring
WS : While Sampling
WD : While Drilling
BCR: Before Casing Removal
ACR: After Casting Removal
Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the time indicated. In pervious soils, the indicated
levels may reflect the location of ground water. In low permeability soils, the accurate determination of ground water levels is not
possible with only short terra observations.
DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Soil Classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification
system and the ASTM Designations D-2488. Coarse Grained
Soils have move than 50% of their dry weight retained on a
#200 sieve; they are described as: boulders, cobbles, gravel or
sand. Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight
retained on a #200 sieve; they are described as : clays, if. they
are plastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic . or non -plastic.
Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor
constituents may be added according to the relative
proportions based on grain size, In addition to gradation,
coarse grained soils arc defined on the basis of their relative in. -
place density and fine grained soils on the basis of their
consistency. Example: Lean clay with sand, trace gravel, stiff
(CL); silty sand, trace gravel, medium dense (SM)1
CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS
Unconfined Compressive
Strength, Qu, psf Consistency
< 500
500 - 1,000
1,001- 2,000
2,001 - 4,000
4,001- 8,000
81001 - 16,000
Very Soft
Soft
Medium
Stiff
Very Stiff
Very Hard
RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE -GRAINED SOILS:,
N -Blows/ft
0-3
4-9
10-29
30-49
50-80
80+
Relative Density
Very Loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
Extremely Dense
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF BEDROCK
DEGREE OF WEATHERING:
Slight Slight decomposition of parent material on
joints. May be color change.
Moderate Some decomposition and color change
throughout.
High Rock highly decomposed, may be extremely
broken.
HARDNESS AND DEGREE OF CEMENTATION;
Lir estorFe and Dolomite:
Hard Difficult to scratch with knife.
Moderately Can be scratched easily with knife.
Hard
Soft
Cannot be scratched with fingernail.
Can be scratched with fingernail.
Shale,. Siltstone and Claystone:
Hard Can be scratched easily with knife, cannot be
scratched with fingernail.
Moderately Can be scratched with fingernail.
Hard
Soft Can be easily dented but not molded with
fingers.
Sandstone and Conglomerate:
Well Capable of scratching a knife blade.
Cemented
Cemented Can be scratched with knife.
Poorly Can be broken apart easily with fingers.
Cemented
Si
u
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Soil Classification
J
Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests
Group
Sym bol
Group Name
Coarse - Grained Soils
more than 50%
retained on No. 200
sieve
Gravels more than
50% of coarse
fraction retained on
No. 4 sieve
Clean Gravels Less Cu d- and l<Cc 3E
than 5% fines
Sands 50% or more
coarse fraction
passes No. 4 sieve
Gravels with Fines
more than 12%
fines
Clean Sands Less
than 5% fines
6W Well -graded gravel r
Cu<4 and/or 1>Cc>3 E
Fines classify as ML or MH
GP Poorly -graded gravel F
GM Silty gravel e'"
Fines Classify as CL or CH
GC Clayey Grave! FAH
CtP6 and 1cCcs3E
Cu<& and/or 1>Cc>3E
SW Well -graded sand i
SP Poorly -graded sand
Sands with Fines
more than 12%
fines
Fines classify as ML or M N
SM Silty sand Gm'i
Fines classify as CL or CH
SC Clayey, sand e'H'i
Fine -Grained Soils
50% or more passes
the No. 200 sieve
Silts and Clays
Liquid Lirrtit less
than 50
inorganic
PIL7 and plots on or above "A" Line
CL Lean clay
Pl<4 or plots below "A" Line
ML silt K1L,m
organic
Liquid Limit - oven dried
Liquid Limit - not dried
<0.75 OL
Organic clay I(L'+,N
Organic silt Kt`M'Q
Silts and Clays
Liquid Limit 50 or
more
inorganic
PI plots on or above "A" Line
CH Fat clay KPL M
PI plots below "A" Line
MH Elastic Silt K'L'
organic
Liquid Limit - oven dried
Liquid Limit - not dried
<0.75 OH
Highly organic soils
Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor
Organic clay K,L M,T
Organic silt K'L,M,ti
PT Peat
ABased on the material passing the 3 -in. (75 -mm)
sieve
'If field sa mple contained cobbles or boulders, or
both, add "with cobbles or boulders, or both" to
group name.
%Gravels with 5 to 12% fines required dual symbols:
GW-G M well graded gravel with silt
GW-GC well -graded gravel with clay
GP -CM poorly -graded gravel with silt
GP -GC poorly -graded gravel with clay
DSands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols:
SW-SM well -graded sand with silt
SW -SC well -graded sand with clay
SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt
SP -SC poorly graded sand with clay
60
50
g40
C
30
20
�i.
10
a
Ecu=C} D I'D'3o�
s�� i� Cc=
D10 x D6,,
Elf sail contains -15% sand, add "with sand" to
Gif fines classify as a -M L, use dual symbol GC -
CM, or SC-SM.
"if fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to
group name
ref soil contains >15% gravel, add "with gravel" to
group name
'if Atterberg limits plots shaded area, soil is a CL -
ML, Silty clay
Kif soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add "with sand"
or "with gravel", whichever Is predominant.
Elf soil contains ≥ 30% pius No. 200 predominantly sand,
add "sandy" to group name.
MIf soil contains 20% plus No. 200 predominantly gravel,
add "gravelly" to group name.
and ptots on or above "A" line.
4Pa54 or plots below "A" line.
PP.1 plots on or above "A" line.
c'PI plots below "A" line.
For Classification
fire -:rained ffactWrl
of fine-grained
of
sails
coarse -grained
and
f
0
r soils.
Equation o1 "A" -Mine
— Horizontal at P1=-4 to LC=25.5
„at
it
O' e
a , s
then
Equation
vertical
Pl-00M.73 (LL -20)
of°U"-lines
at LLri6 to PI -7,
, i
e
e
col'' ''i
_
ten P1=0.9i (ILL -8)
, f
1
o
, j
J
j
0 •
e
it
H o�
OH
.r
r
ML.,
OL
L-',
a 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70
LIQUID LIMIT OLL)
BO 90
100
110
J
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
I
Legend
-O- B- I thru B -B: Approximate
Locations for 10 Foundation
Related Test Borings Drilled 15-30'
* B-9: Water Quality/Detention Pond
Boring for Soil Profile & Infiltration
Characteristics Drilled 15'
B-10 & B-1 1: Pavement Related
Test Borings Drilled 10'
* SP: I.S.D.S/Septic System Soil Boring
Profile Drilled 10'
* P-1 thru P-6: Shallow Soil
Percolation Borings Drilled 34
Boring Location Diagram
Gerrard Facilities
Johnstown, Colorado
EEC Project Number: 1162008 Date: February 2016
EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LLC
GERRARD CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
JOHN TOWN, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1162000
RIG TYPE: CMESS
FOREMAN: DO
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC
LOG OF BORING E-1 DATE: FEBRUARY 2016
SHEET 1 OF 2
START DATE
FINISH DATE
SURFACE ELEV
2/22/2016 WHILE DRILLING
2122/2010 AFTER DRILLING
N/A
WATE
DEPTH
a°
NIA
24 HOUR
N/A
SOIL DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL & VEGETATION
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL)
brown
medium stiff
brown / grey/ rust
a
TYPE CF E ET)
W
(BLOWS/FT)
SS
CLAYSTONE J SI LTSTONE SANDSTONE
brown / grey 1 rust
With calcareous deposits
moderately hard to hard
* Classifies as SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL)
Continued on Sheet 2 of 2
CS
SS
1
2
3
4
tau
Pe PI
DD
(PCP)
A -LIMITS
LL 1 PI
-200 U SWELL
PRESSURE °fo PSF
6 5
6
7
a i
e
P
9
l000 226.4 94.9 32 17
69.6 <500 psf
None
10 4 I 1000 25.3
11
12
13
14
15 50/10"
16
an, MIN
17
18
19
6000
17,7 112.8 41 I 24 69.5 I 2500 par
1.6%
20 50/10" 9000+ 14.6
21
22
23
CS! I 25 5018"
9000+ 14.6 1 118.8
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLD
GERRARD CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
JOHNSTOWN, COLORADO
PROJECT NO; 1162008
RIG TYPE: CME55
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC
SOIL DESCRIPTION
TYPE
LOG OF BORING B-1
SHEET 2 OF 2
START DATE
FINISH DATE
SURFACE ELEV
212212016
2)2212016
N/A
R
(FEET)
N
(SLOWS 'FT I
QU
{PS F1
OD
(PCF1
DATE: FEBRUARY 2018
WATER DEPTH
WHILE DRILLING
AFTER DRILLING
24 HOUR
NIA
a
8"
NIA
A -LIMITS
LL
FBI
.200
SWELL
PRESSURE
Continued from Sheet 1 of 2
26
CLAYSTONE / SILTSTONE / SANDSTONE
brown / grey / rust
with calcareous deposits
moderately hard to hard
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 30,5
SS
27
28
NES
29
30
INA
31
32
33
sioli ENS
34
35
36
37
36
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Mir
49
50
50
18.9
%@ iU4 FSF
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
GERRARD CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
JOHNSTOWN, COLORADO
•
•y
a
1
1
1
.1
PROJECT NO: 1162008
RIG TYPE: CME55
LOG OF BORING R-2
SHEET I OF 1
DATE: FEBRUARY 2016
WATER DEPTH
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC
START DATE
FINISH DATE
2122/2016
SURFACE ELEV
2/2212018
N/A
WHILE DRILLING
9'
AFTER DRILLING
WA
24 HOUR
N/A
SOIL DESCRIPTION
TYPE
D
(FEET)
M
(BLOWS/FT)
ClU
(PSFI
MC
(WI
DD A.LIMITS I -200
Pen LL I ri II ra
SWELL
PRESSURE I % t MI6 PSF
LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL)
brown
medium stiff
with calcareous deposits
with gypsum crystals
soft
CS
S
IMEr
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
CS 10
CLAYSTONE 1 SILTSTONE /SANDSTONE
brown ./ grey / rust
soft to hard with depth
with Intermittent sandstone seams
SS
Cs
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.0'
a
11
12
13
a
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2000 22.8 97.9
5
2000
23.2
2 2500
22.2
O8,5
50/9" 3000 13.9
5018" I 9000+
153
116.0
Earth Engineering Consultants, US
GERRARD CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
JOHNSTOWN, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1182008
RIG TYPE: CME55
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC
LOG OF BORING B-3
SHEET I OF f
START DATE _
FINISH DATE
SURFACE ELEY
212212016
2/22/2016
N/A
DATE: FEBRUARY 2018
WHILE DRILLING
WATER DEPTH
AFTER DRILLING
24 HOUR
8.5'
NIA
NIA
SOIL DESCRIPTION
TYPE
D
FEET)
N
(BLoWSJFT)
QU
(PSF1
Me
OD
(rCA)
A -LIMITS
LL I P1
-20D
SWELL
PRESSURE I % 500 PSF
TOPSOIL & VEGETATION
LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL)
brown
medium stiff
occasional gypsum crystals
1
2
3
4
CS ! 5
CLAYSTOr rE I SILTSTONE /SANDSTONE
DSTONE
brown 1 grey .t rust
highly weathered
soft to hard with depth
SS
C8
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 15.0'
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
6 1500
24.3
96.4
<500 psf
None
5 500
27.0
50/10"
8000+
16,0
114.4
3000 osf
2.5%
Earth Engineering Consultants, LL C
GERRARD CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
JOHNSTOWN, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1162008 -
LOG OF BORING B4
DATE: FEBRUARY 2016
RIG TYPE: CME55
SHEET I OF 1
WATER DEPTH
FOREMAN: DG
START DATE
2/22(2016
WHILE DRILLING 1
4'
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
FINISH DATE [
2/2212016
AFTER DRILLING N/A
SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC
SURFACE ELEV
N/A
24 HOUR 5'
SOIL DESCRIPTION
D
N
QU MC
DD !
A -LIMITS
-200 l
SWELL —
TYPE
(.FEET)
iBLOWEIFT1
I
I
I
E
(PSF)
NI
Pen
LL
PI
MI
PRESSURE
% a ALO PSF
TOPSOIL 8, VEGETATION
1
i
LEAN CLAY (CL)
brown
medium stiff to soft
2
CS I 3
SS
CLAYSTONE I SILTSTONE /SANDSTONE
brown is dray I rust
with calcareous deposits
with gypsum crystals
soft to hard with depth
CS
1
3$
SS
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.5'
4
5
s M
6
7
8
- a
9
4
M
28.1
92.2
34 19
87.6
c50O psf I None
30.5
10 14 I 6500
11
12
13
14
23.3
102.0
15 50111"
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
m S
24
25
B000 18.3
50/9" 904)0+
15.6
115.7
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
TOPSOIL &VEGETATION
GERRARD CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
JOHNSTOWN, N, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1162008
RIG TYPE: CMESS
FOREMAN: PG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC
SOIL DESCRIPTION
LOG OF BORING 0-5
SHEET f OF I
START DATE
FINISH DATE
SURFACE ELEV
2122/20/6
2122/2010
N/A
(FEET)
LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL)
brown
medium stiff
CLAYSTONE } SILTSTONIE 1 SANDSTONE
brown / grey / rust
with calcareous deposits
with gypsum crystals
soft to hard with depth
* Classifies as LEAN CLAY (CL)
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 15.O
CS
SS
CS
1
2
r v
3
4
5
0
7
8
9
10
el N
11
12
13
i
14
15
16
a a
17
1$
19
20
2i
22
23
24
25
DATE: FEBRUARY 2016
WATER DEPTH
WHILE DRILLING
8'
AFTER DRILLING
24 HOUR
N/A
NAJA
N
(BLOWSIFT)
Cu
(PSF
MC
DO
(PCF1
A -LIMITS
LL PI
-200
SWELL
PRESSURE I IS 5DD PSF
4
25.9
92.3
20
2000
22.4
I
%i1COQgist ,
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
PROJECT NO: 1162008
RIG TYPE: OME55
FOREMAN: DO
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
BPI HAMMER: AUTOMATIC
SOIL DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL 8 VEGETATION
LEAN CLAY (CL)
brown
medium stiff
with calcareous deposits
CLAYSTCINE / SI LTSTONE / SANDSTONE
brawn I grey / rust
with calcareous deposits
with gypsum crystals
Continued on Sheet 2 of 2
SS
CS
SS
GERRARD CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
JOHN TOWN, COLORADO
LOG OF BORING B-6
D
(FEET)
6
7
8
9
_ -
10
11
12
13
14
SHEET '1 OF 2
START DATE
FINISH DATE
SURFACE ELEV
(BLOWSIF
vu
rPSF1
9000+
10 I 5500
15 50/9"
16
17
18
19
I 21
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
9000t
9000+
9000+
2/2212016
2/2212016
N/A
20.4
15.3 1115.9
16.4
DATE: FEBRUARY 2016
WATER DEPTH
WHILE DRILLING
AFTER DRILLING
24 HOUR
A -LIMITS
LL P�
Chi
-200
SWELL
PRESSURE I +Yo S00 PSF
2500 oaf
GERRARD CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
JOHNSTOWN, 'N, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1162008
RIG TYPE: CME55
FOREMAN: DO
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC SURFACE ELEV
Continued from Sheet 1 of 2
CLAYSTONE ISILTSTONE I SANDSTONE
brown /grey/rust
with calcareous deposits
1
i
i
i
al
J
D
(FEET)
LOG OF BORING B-6
SHEET 2 OF 2 WATER DEPTH
START DATE
FINISH DATE
M
(B LOWSJFTj
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
2(22/2016
2122/2016
N/A
MD
50/8" 9000+ 16.2
DATE; FEBRUARY 2016
WHILE DRILLING
AFTER DRILLING
24 HOUR
OD MAWS
(Pen L!. PM
8'
N/A
NIA
SWELL
) PRESSURE
%e BOO PSF
J
GERRARD CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
JOHNSTOWN, STOWN, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1182008
RIG TYPE: CMESS
LOG OF BORING B-7
SHEET I OF 1
DATE: FEBRUARY 2016
WATER DEPTH
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC
START DATE
FINISH DATE
SURFACE ELEV
•
212212016
2122/2016
N/A
WHILE DRILLING
AFTER DRILLING
24 HOUR
8'
NIA
N/A
SOIL DESCRIPTION
LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL)
brown
medium stiff
brown / rust 1 grey
stiff
D
TYPE tFEETI
CS
SS
N
W LOWS)FT)
Cu
(P$Ft
MC
DD
(PCF)
A -LIMITS
IL PJ
-200
SWELL
PRESSURE °h e 500 P$F
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
T
Ca I 10
CLAYSTONE / SILTSTONE r SANDSTONE
brown I grey / rust
with calcareous deposits
soft to moderately hard
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 15 5
11
i s
12
13
14
a r
15
16
17
a
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2000
23.6 1 98.4
<500 psf None
3
IiHil
28..8
9
5500
23.7 I 100,2
47 9000+
17.1
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLD
4
.
grit
V -
0
t
I
GERRARD CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
JOHN TOWN, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1162008
RIG TYPE: CRESS
FOREMAN: DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: AUTOMAT?C
LOG OF BORING B-$
SHEET 1 OF I
START DATE
2/22/2016
FINISH DATE
SURFACE ELEV
2(22/2016
NIA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2016
WATER DEPTH
WHILE DRILLING 11'
AFTER DRILLING
24 HOUR
NIA
NIA
SOIL DESCRIPTION
P€
D
(FEETM
N Cu
f$LOWSIFrj, (PSF)
M4
DO A•LIMITS
-200
{PCF LL PI 1%1
SWELL
PRESSURE 4A S00 PSF
TOPSOIL & VEGETATION
LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL)
brown
medium stiff
CS
brown / grey / rust
CLAYSTONE 1 S ILTSTON E / SANDSTONE
brown /grey / rust
highly weathered
with calcareous deposits
moderately hard to hard with depth
* Classifies as LEAN CLAY (CL)
Continued on Sheet 2 of 2
SS
1
2
a
4
5 4
6
7
8
cj
2.5.9
93.4
10 13 3000 23.3
11
12
13
14
a r
CS 15 50110" 9000+ I 15.6
SS
CS
1€
17
i a
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
117.3 V 42
24
94.3
4000 psf I 2.1%
50
9000+
19.6
50/7" I 9000+ 15.9
117.0
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
I
GERRARD CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
JOHNSTOWN, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1162008
RIG TYPE: CMES5
LOG OF BORING B-8
SHEET 2 OF 2
DATE: FEBRUARY 2016
WATER DEPTH
FOREMAN: bG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SRI HAMMER: AUTOMATIC
START DATE
FINISH DATE
2122/20/6 WHILE DRILLING
2/22/2016 AFTER DRILLING
SURFACE ELEV
11'
N/A
N/A 24 H011R
NIA
SOIL DESCRIPTION
a
rePE IFEETI
N
(BLOWS IFTI
QU
fPSF1
MC DO A -LIMITS
f-0�o) IPCFi LL
Continued from Sheet 1 of 2
CLAYSTONE 1 SILTSTONE / SANDSTONE
brown /grey / rust
highly weathered
wkth intermittent cemented lenses
S$
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 3115'
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Ll
35
36
37
38
39
41
42
43
a a
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
PI
-200 SWELL
(%1
PRESSURE
50/9"
9000+
1 BM
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
F
i
i
GERRARD CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
JOHNSTOWN, COLORADO
PROJECT NO; 1162008
RIG TYPE: CME55
LOG OF BORING B-9
SHEET I OF I
DATE: FEBRUARY 2016
WATER DEPTH
FOREMAN; DG
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC
SOIL DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL &VEGETATION
LEAN CLAY (CL)
brown
skiff
TYPE
CLAYSTONE ! SILTSTONE I SANDSTONE
brown l grey/ rust
soft to moderately hard
with gypsum crystals
D
(FEET!
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
a r-
9
START DATE
FINISH DATE
SURFACE ELEV
r� vU
mmLOWSIFTl (PSF
i
2/2212016
2122/2018
N/A
MC
WHILE DRILLING
AFTER DRILLING
24 HOUR
oa A4JMITS
PCF 44 F PI
Nona
-200
NIA
N/A
SWELL
PRESSURE _ % @ 500 POP
10 4000
20.4 l 102.4 d 34 I 17
90.4
SS 1 10 I 27 I 5500
CS
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 15,x'
11
12
13
14
dilEM
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
-
25
12.5
50
9000+
19.0 111.5
1
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
GERRARD CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
JOHNSTOWN, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 112008
RIG TYPE: CMESS
FOREMAN: DO
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC
SOIL DESCRIPTION
TYPE
LOG OF BORING 6-10
SHEET 1 OF 1
START DATE
FINISH DATE
2/22/2016
2/22/2016
SURFACE ELEV
N/A
D
(FEET1
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL)
brown
medium stiff
CLAYSTONE a" SILTSTONE
brown/ ire / a r, Fr nfil Weathered
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 10.6'
SS
SS
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
U
10
11
a
S
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
In 4-12
23
24
26
DATE: FEBRUARY 2016
WATER DEPTH
WHILE DRILLING
AFTER DRILLING
24 HOUR
4.S'
N/A
NIA
4
500 25.0 a 95.6
(%), PRESSURE ! % cgD Sod PSG'
<150 psi'
None
3
30.7
8
3000
26.6
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
GERRARD CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
JOH NSTOWN, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1162008
RIG TYPE; CMES5
FOREMAN: DC
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC
SOIL DESCRIPTION
'TYPE
LOG OF BORING B-11
SHEET I OF f
START DATE
2122/2016
a
IFEET1
TOPSOIL & VEGETATION
LEAN CLAY (CL)
brown
medium stiff
brown ! grey I mast
CB
SS
SS
IMES
1
2
3
4
5
6
n
7
a
9
_ -.
10
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 10.5' 11
12
1a
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
FINISH DATE
SURFACE ELEV
2/22/2016
N/A
DATE: FEBRUARY 2016
WATER DEPTH
WH ILE DRILLING
AFTER DRILLING
24 HOUR
None
NIA
KVA
N
tBLOWS/FT)
MC DD
%I rPCF5
A -LIMITS
LL
PI
-200
SWELL
(%I PRESSURE I % ti, boa PSF
% O.150 psf
4
500
24.6
96.2
36 21
00.6
<150 psf None
3
28:9
5
1500 24.2
Earth Engineering Consultants, PLC
PROJECT NO: 1162008
RIG TYPE: CME55
FOREMAN; DO
AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA
SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC
SOIL DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL & VEGETATION
LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL)
brown
medium stiff
with calcareous deposits
+CLAYSTO IE: brown / grey / rust highly weathered
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 9.5'
GERRARD CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
J0HNSTOWN, H H TO'N, COLORADO
LOG OF BORING SP
13
(FEET)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
i0
- SS -
11
-
12
13
- SIN
14
15
18
17
- a
18
19
20
- a
21
22
23
24
25
SHEET? OF 1
START DATE
FINISH DATE
SURFACE ELEV
w
(BLOWSIF
3
QU
(PSFI
1000
3000
2/24/2016
2/24/2016
N/A
MC
24.1
25.3
DATE: FEBRUARY 2016
WHILE DRILLING
AFTER DRILLING
24 HOUR
A -LIMITS
WATER DEPTH
NM
WA
SWELL
PRESSUI % 5!o par
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Material Description: Bre n Sandy Lean Clay (CO
Sample Location: Boring 1,
Sample 1, Depth 4'
Liquid Limit: 32
Plasticity Index: 17
% Passing #200: 69.6%
Dry Density: 100.9 pcf
Ending Moisture: 22,4%
Beginning Moisture: 26.0%
Swell Pressure: <500 psf
% Swell @ 500: None
Percent Movement
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
-2.0
-4.0
-8,0
-10.0
0.01
■
■ i_
II
III
1
I
Water
Added
nn
I_
0.1
Load (TS F)
I
10
Project:
Location:
Project #:
Date:
Gerrard Corporate Headquarters
Johnstown, Colorado
1162008
March 2016
S'H'ELL 1 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Material Description: Brown, Grey, Rust Claystane 1 Siltstone / Sandstone
Sample Location: Boring 1, Sample 3, Depth 14'
Liquid Limit: 41
Plasticity Index: 24
% Passing #200: 69.5%
Beginning Moisture: 17.7%
Dry Density:
110.8 pcf
Engling Moisture: 18.7%
Swell Pressure: 2500 psf
% Swell @ 500: 1.6%
0.0
'8O.
1
■
�I
II
I�
6.0
I
111
N 4.0
I
I
I
2.0I
1
I�
trui
o
f 0.0
II
c
43
co
a
Water
Added
r
-2.0
1
II
-4.0
D
Cl,
stk
I�
III
60
U
8.0
_
-10.0
N
0.01
0.1
Load (TSF)
�I
10
Project:
Location:
Project #:
Date:
Gerrard Corporate Headquarters
Johnstown, Colorado
1162 008
March 2016
w
t
I
r
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Material Description: Brown Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
Sample Location: Boring 3, Sample 1, Depth 4'
Nad Limit:
- -
Plasticity Index: 3 =
% Passing #200: - -
Beginning Moisture: 24.3%
Dry Density: 10111 pcf
Ending Moisture: 23.1%
% Swell @500:
None
Swell Pressure: <500 psf
Percent Movement
Conso►lidatio
-10.0
0.01
0.1
Load (T F)
I
10
Project:
Location:
Project #:
Date:
Gerrard Corporate Headquarters
Johnstown, Colorado
1162008
March 2016
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Material Description: Brown, Grey, Rust Claystone / Siltstone / Sandstone
Sample Location: Boring 3, Sample 3, Depth 14'
Liquid Limit: - -
% Passing #200: - -
Plasticity Index: - -
Beginning Moisture: 16.0% I
Dry Density: 117.3 pof
Ending
Moisture; 18.7%
Swell Pressure: 3000 psf
% Swell @500: 2.5%
10.0
8.0
6,0
U)
4.0
Percent Movement
Consolidatio
2.0
0.0
-2.0
-4.0
-6.0
-8.0
-10.0
0.01
!'
!
I
!
1
1
I
Is3/4.1%....4%.
I
I
II
_
Water
i
Added
_
I
1
1
1
I
I
�
I
I
I
0.1
Load (TSF)
10
Project:
Location:
Project #:
Date:
Gerrard Corporate Headquarters
Johnstown, Colorado
1162008
March 2016
ELL CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Material Description: Brown Lean
Clay (CL)
Sample Location: Boring 4, Sample 1, Depth 2'
Liquid Limit: 34
Plasticity Index: 19
% Passing #200: 87.6%
Dry Density: 97.1 pcf
Ending Moisture: 23.2%
Beginning Moisture: 28.1%
Swell Pressure: <500 psf
% Swell @ 500:
None
1
10.0
0.0
6.0
is
co
4.0
20
0
2 0.0
C
0
ism
-2.0
-4.0
-8.0
-10.0
0.01
II
I!
1
!IY
II
II_
Water
Added
1
1
liii
0.1
Load (TSF)
1
10
Project:
Location:
Project #:
Date:
Gerrard Corporate Headquarters
Johnstown, Colorado
1162008
March 2016
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Material Description:
Rust Claystone I Siltstone / Sandstone
Brown, Grey,
Sample Location: Boring 5, Sample 3, Depth 14'
Liquid Limit: 44
Plasticity
Index: 27
% Passing #200: 95.0%
Beginning Moisture:
Dry Density: 112.3 pot
Ending Moisture: 18.4%
17.1%
Swell Pressure: ~2500 psf I%
Swell @ 1000:
0.5%
J
inn
I1�
I
I
III
i
1
I
�I
lovement
M
YI
n
II
■
11
1
II
im
ii,
II
Water
Added
I
I�I
I
-70.0
I■I
1
I'Itl�
0.01
0'1
Load (TS
F)
1
10
Project:
Location:
Project #:
Date:
Gerrard Corporate Headquarters
Johnstown, Colorado
1162008
March 2016
i
SWELL I CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Material Description: Brown Lean Clay (CL)
Sample Location: Boring 6, Sample 1, Depth 4'
Liquid Limit 37
Plasticity Index: 21
% Passing ##200: 91.5%
pcf
Ending Moisture: 19.7%
Beginning Moisture: 12.6%
Dry Density: 107.3
(Swell Pressure: 2500 psf
% Swell @ 500:
1.7%
Project:
Location:
Project #:
Date:
a
e
I
1
I
b,
•
•
Water
Added
p
'
•
I
I
I
�
I
Gerrard Corporate Headquarters
Johnstown, Colorado
1162008
March 2016
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Material Description: Brown Lean
Clay with Sand (CL)
1, Depth 2'
Sample Location: Boring 7, Sample
Liquid Limit: - -
Plasticity Index: - -
% Passing
#200: - -
Beginning Moisture: 23.6%
Dry Density: 100,1
pcf
Ending Moisture:
22.9%
Swell Pressure: <500 psf
None
.% Swell @ 500:
Project:
Location:
Project #:
Date:
a
it
1
-
Latirptdaed
1 I�I
Gerrard Corporate Headquarters
Johnstown, Colorado
1162008
March 2016
II.
•
f
r
.
i
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Material Description: Brown, Grey, Rust Claystone / Siltstone / Sandstone
Sample Location: Boring 8, Sample 3, Depth
14'
Liquid Limit: 42
Plasticity Index: 24
% Passing #200: 94.3%
Beginning Moisture: 15.6%
Dry Density: 116.6 pof
Ending Moisture: 17.3%
Swell Pressure: 4000 psf
l% Swell @ 500: 2.1%
U)
Percent Movement
-10.0
0.01
0.1
Load (TSF)
1
10
Project:
Location:
Project #:
Date:
Gerrard Corporate Headquarters
Johnstown, Colorado
1162008
March 2016
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Material Description: Brown Lean Clay with Sand
(CL)
Sample Location:
Boring 10, Sample 1, Depth
2'
=
- -
Liquid Limit:
-
Plasticity Index:
% Passing 11200: - -
Beginning Moisture:
25.0%
Dry Density: 99,1 pcf
Ending Moisture: 23.8%
Swell Pressure:
<150 psf
% Swell @ 150:
None
a
4
coC
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
C
E
0.0
I1
C
C,
V
C,
a.
-2.0
-4.0
Cu
(5 -6.0
U
-8.0 -
-10.0
0.01
IL'
{
e
1
1
1
c.S
l
!T r
Water
Added
I
I
I
0.1
Load (T F)
1
10
Project:
Location:
Project #:
Date:
Gerrard Corporate Headquarters
Johnstown, Colorado
1162008
March 2016
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Material Description: Brawn Lean Clay (CL)
Sample Location:
Boring 11 p Sample t, Depth
2'
Liquid Limit: 36
Plasticity Index: 21
% Passing #200: 90.6% L
Beginning Moisture: 24.6%
Dry Density: 101.5 pct
Ending Moisture: 24.7%
Swell Pressure: 4150 pst
f Swell @150: None
co
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
.0
E
0.0
C
4,
•
a.
-2 10
-4.0
O
ties
— 6 . 0
O
-8.0
-10.0 0,01
0.1
Load (TSF)
1
10
Project:
Location:
Project 4:
Date:
Gerrard Corporate Headquarters
Johnstown, Colorado
1162008
March 2016
Hello